Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Patricia,
    
    To Christians, [my definition = inerrant Word of God, Saved by Grace
    through Faith by the blood of Jesus, Baptized and separated from the
    World], it is the very essence of salvation.
    
    Crucifixion
    Representing the price [For ye are bought with a price] paid for our
    sins which separate us from God [For all have sinned and come short of
    the glory of God.  For the *wages* of sin is *death*, but the *gift* of
    God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord.]
    
    Resurrection
    Victory over death.  It is representative of our own death, burial and
    resurrection into etern��al life.
    
    Nancy

There is great mystery and material for a zillion sermons in the meaning
of the cross and the Resurrection.

To me, Jesus going to the cross represents a demonstration of love.

Jesus' resurrection, to me, represents the overcoming of the ultimate,
unstoppable consequence of life: death.

Shalom,
Richard

    neener neener Richard, beat you by a mere fraction of second. :-)

    Patricia:
    
    I ditto Nancy's explanation.  Based on the scripture she used, how do
    you differentiate your opinion of the atonement theology you mentioned
    in a previous note?  You stated it was bad theology so I'm just 
    wondering.  Thanks and God bless.
    
    -Jack

    Yes, Richard, it is the ultimate expression of love to lay down your
    life for someone who doesn't acknowledge you even exist.
    
    Nancy

    Jack
    
    re: 811.4
    re 796.35
    
    I do regret my choice of words in 796.35 in describing "The atonement
    stuff as bad theology"  I have to rethink what bad theology is?  I don't
    really know enough about the doctrine to label it bad theology or not.
    I guess that is what this note is all about for me.  
    
    It also points to a difficulty of interpreting Paul.  Just as I can
    write something which I regret later or even don't agree with a short
    time later, Paul too is not totally consistent throughout his letters.
    
    That is a problem with notes as a literary form.  It is a problem with
    letters as a literary form.
    
    Patricia
    Patricia
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    Atonement has occasionally been written as 'at-one-ment', or unity.
    
    Given this view of the word, it gave me a whole new outlook on the
    concept of atonement.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy,
    
    I agree with you.  So the question is how do we get in right
    relationship with the Divine.
    
    What I have real difficulty with is the response that the physical
    spilling of Christ's blood on the Cross.  The physical sacrifice was
    required.  Did God require that Christ be sacrificed to have humankind
    in right relationship with him/her? Why?  Was it required of God that
    Christ must be sacrificed?  Then he would not be omnipotent.  Wouldn't
    the logic then take you to Christ was sacrificed because God required
    Christ to be sacrificed.  Why would God require Christ to be
    sacrificed?
    
    The only answer that works for me is that God gave humankind the gift
    of human freedom.  As part of this gift God does not directly interfere
    with human decisions.  God also gave the gift of Jesus Christ.  Jesus
    ministered to the people.  His ministry was critical to him.  Jesus
    went into Jerusalem knowing that he may be killed.  His ministry was so
    important to him that he went anyway.  He was crucified. 
    
    Now my question?
    
    To accept Jesus
    
    does this mean to accept his ministry which was so important to him
    that he died for it.
    
    or
    
    Does this mean to accept the ritualistic value of the sacrifice of
    Jesus, the Christ?
    
    It is the second answer that I reject.
    
                                     Patricia 

 The answer is in the word "atonement" and its meaning. I don't have the 
 time right now to launch into the meaning of that word and its implications.


 God *hates* sin..He cannot tolerate it in His presence.  God loves us, but
 we are sinners.  He loved us so much that He came to earth to live as human
 and pay the price for our sin.  While He was on the cross, all of our sin, 
 past present and future was placed on Him.  His blood was shed as a sacrifice
 as in the OT concept of atonement..the price was paid in full..its a free gift.
 But, as in any gift, one must accept it.  To accept it, one must acknowledge
 that they are sinners, and eternally separated from God in that condition, and
 that Jesus paid the debt for our sin..


 Read Romans 3:23
 (also James 2:10)

 Romans 6:23
 (also John 3:16)
 Romans 5:8

 Romans 10:13



  Jim

    Jim,
    
    I am reading Romans pretty thoroughly right now.  If I studied Romans
    before Corinthians I'm not sure I would appreciate Paul so much.  
    
    But I have not given up yet.
    
    By the way, if we reject the old testament system of sacrifice which I
    think is the message of the Abraham/Isaac story how does that impact
    our cultural acceptance of the message of the Cross which refers back
    to the old testament sacrifice system.
    
    The sacrifice of infant babies was I am lead to believe  common in the
    Canaanite religions and is a big part of the attach on paganism as
    discused in the old testament.  The implied demand for Abraham to
    sacrifice Isaac showing the the OT God may in fact demand human
    sacrifice and then God telling Abraham he did not need to sacrifice
    Isaac seemed to imply that God never really intended human sacrifice.
    Was Paul speaking from a pagan world view in his identifying with the
    OT sacrificial system?  Would a God who put an end to human sacrifice
    really demand the sacrifice of Jesus?  
    
    By the way Jim did you really mean to write God cannot tolerate sin in
    his presence.  Cannot an omnipotent God tolerate anything.  In fact I
    believe that God tolerates quite a bit in his presence because he has
    given freedom to us humans and expects us to figure out how to use this
    freedom to create the kingdom of heaven on earth.  In fact he tolerated
    the death of Jesus in support of human freedom even to make such a
    tragic error.
    
    Patricia

God cannot tolerate sin in His presence.  That is why those
who reject the sacrifice for their sins can never be
considered sinless and will never be allowed into the
presence of God.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    So there is something God cannot do?
    
    Patricia

    re: Note 811.12 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN
    
    Patricia,
    
    |So there is something God cannot do?
    
    Something God WILL not do, because of His perfect nature.  Reminds me
    of the "could God make a rock too big for even Himself to lift?"
    question... why would He bother in the first place?
    
    John

             <<< Note 811.10 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

    
>    By the way Jim did you really mean to write God cannot tolerate sin in
>    his presence.  Cannot an omnipotent God tolerate anything.  In fact I
 
     Yes, I really meant to write that..



    >believe that God tolerates quite a bit in his presence because he has
    >given freedom to us humans and expects us to figure out how to use this
    >freedom to create the kingdom of heaven on earth.  In fact he tolerated
    >the death of Jesus in support of human freedom even to make such a
    >tragic error.
    
    
    Yes, he tolerates quite a bit in his presence..that does not mean that
    anyone is getting away with anything.

    He did not "tolerate" Jesus doing anything..He gave His son, God gave up His
    human life as payment for my sin debt and yours..we are free to accept that
    payment, or reject it..He did it for you, and me, and now Jesus stands at 
    the right hand of the Father as our advocate...and because of that the Judge
    says "not guilty" to those who have accepted Christ (as I explained in an
    earlier note..its all in the Bible..




   Jim

 
  >So there is something God cannot do?
   
Definately!  God cannot do anything that it is against
his nature to do.

One obvious example is that God does not change (his
essentials) as the Scripture says.  God also cannot
break his word.  God also cannot be unjust.  The list
goes on and on.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    I see your examples as a different class.
    
    The statement "God cannot tolerate sin" does not sound like an
    omnipotent God.  Why would God tolerate sin?  For the same reason that
    a parent might tolerate bad behavoir in  children.  To give them a
    chance to repent. To give them a chance to utilize their freedom for
    future good.  Does not the Psalms say God will show mercy on who
    he shows mercy on(my bible reference may be off here).  Does that not mean
    that God will tolerate what god will tolerate?
    
    The theory of atonement as being defined here is that their is a demand
    for a divine sacrifice to cover the sins of humankind.  Who creates
    that demand for a divine sacrifice.  If it is not God then it is a
    power greater than God which I maintain does not exist.  If God creates
    the demand for the divine sacrifice then God can also forgo the demand
    for the divine sacrifice.  God is omnipotent, God can forgive the sins
    of humankind, God does not need a divine sacrifice for him to forgive
    the sins of humankind.  God can forgive what God wants to forgive.
    
    Patricia

  >If God creates the demand for the divine sacrifice then God can 
  >also forgo the demand for the divine sacrifice.  

God does indeed create the demand for an acceptable payment for
sin (which a divine sacrifice provides) but God cannot forgo
the demand for this payment.

I think we're getting hung up on your definition of omnipotent.
Perhaps God is "able" to accept sin in his presence, perhaps
not.  I'm not totally sure.  But it is clear that God is not
willing to do so because this is *wrong*.  God must be just
because it is part of who he is.  In essence, God is not "able"
to be unjust.  I don't think the Bible ever deals with this
distinction, so I'm unable to deal with it effectively.

The Scriptures never suggest that God is omnipotent in the sense
that He can or does choose to do something which is contrary to
His nature.  They say exactly the opposite; that He does nothing
contrary to His nature and will never, ever change.  That is
what the Biblical writers mean by omnipotent.

Collis

    
Re.8

Patricia,

I suspect my answers won't really go over too well with most people here
(or it may not be understood, given that the context is so different.)
With that, here is an attempt...

I do not believe that God required Christ to be sacrificed.  Christ, as
a living spiritual Master, chose to do that himself.  The choice was 
presented, and he chose it consciously.  In that way, then, it was a 
supreme gift, in that it canceled out all of the wrongs that people had 
committed up to that time who were living at the time that Christ was living.

From "Autobiography Of A Yogi", and from many other sources as well, it
is mentioned that a spiritual master has the option of taking on the karma
of others, and working it out through his/her own body.  

Every 'wrong' that a person commits has to be rectified somehow.  This can
happen over many, many lifetimes.  Even though a person asks for forgivness,
still there is a debt to be paid.  When a person turns from bad to good
(Satan to God), this is made easier because actions done without expectation
of a return, work to cancel out the wrongs done before.  

For example, I recall a situation from the movie "Gandhi" in that a Hindu
man had killed the son of a Muslim family, because a Muslim man had killed
his own son.  The Hindu man was tormented by his conscience over what he had 
done, and asked Gandhi if there was a way to get out of the hell he was in.  
Gandhi replied, "Go find an orphaned Muslim boy and raise him as your son.  
However, you must also raise him as a Muslim.  This will get you out of your 
hell."

Or, a spiritual Master can work through the wrongs through his/her own body 
and life for you as a supreme gift.
    
>So the question is how do we get in right relationship with the Divine.

Using Peck's model, those who are in Stage 1 should begin following the 
Laws that have been presented time and time again through the many holy
works that have been given to us by the many avatars.  The Bible, the Gita,
the Qur'an, etc.  Although they differ on some of the fine points, basically
they all say the same thing in terms of just how to live one's life to get
in right relationship with the Divine and their fellow humans and all living
things on Earth.

Those who are in Stage 3 and 4 of Peck's model are in a different place
when it comes to spiritual growth.  For them, the Law is written on their
hearts (for the most part), so their actions come from the heart center
primarily.  For them, they act out of the inner guidance (also known as the
conscience) that comes from the Divine, and even though their outward actions 
may seem to sometimes be in direct conflict with the Law, ultimately it is 
their 'intent' that they are judged on.  

    
>    What I have real difficulty with is the response that the physical
>    spilling of Christ's blood on the Cross.  The physical sacrifice was
>    required.  Did God require that Christ be sacrificed to have humankind
>    in right relationship with him/her? Why?  Was it required of God that
>    Christ must be sacrificed?  Then he would not be omnipotent.  Wouldn't
>    the logic then take you to Christ was sacrificed because God required
>    Christ to be sacrificed.  Why would God require Christ to be
>    sacrificed?

Some of these questions are answered above.  The question on logic taking one
to Christ being sacrificed because God required it...from the perspective that
I'm speaking from, it was not necessary in the overall scheme of things, to
have Christ be a sacrifice because God required it.  

If that hadn't happened, then the people of that time would have been much 
further away from a direct relationship with the Divine than they were after 
the crucifixion happened.

    
>    The only answer that works for me is that God gave humankind the gift
>    of human freedom.  As part of this gift God does not directly interfere
>    with human decisions.  God also gave the gift of Jesus Christ.  Jesus
>    ministered to the people.  His ministry was critical to him.  Jesus
>    went into Jerusalem knowing that he may be killed.  His ministry was so
>    important to him that he went anyway.  He was crucified. 

Yes, this is part of it.  The other, more esoteric part, is that a part of
his ministry was to assist at higher energetic levels to bring people living
at that time in direct relationship with God, and so the deeper meaning of
his crucifixion was that he worked out the karma of others through going 
ahead with it, and not avoiding it (which he could easily have done.)

    
>    Now my question?
>    
>    To accept Jesus
>    
>    does this mean to accept his ministry which was so important to him
>    that he died for it.
>    
>    or
>    
>    Does this mean to accept the ritualistic value of the sacrifice of
>    Jesus, the Christ?
>    
>    It is the second answer that I reject.
    
Put that way, I also reject it.  Put another way - that it was a choice and
a gift that he died on the Cross to rectify the 'sins' of those living at
that time - then I accept it.

Where the aspect of Satan comes in (accepting or rejecting Christ and what
He did) - Satan would have us believe that all that exists is the physical
universe, and nothing beyond it.  Christ showed us that we can evolve toward
the greater good of all, and that life exists beyond what we see, whereas 
Satan represents the 'get it while you can, because this is all there is' 
and 'do unto others before they do unto you' camp, if you will.  

In more esoteric terms, Satan represents the blocks in our energy fields.
These blocks keep us from realizing our Divine potential - the Divine potential
that Christ came to help us toward, both in His teachings and in his life,
death, and life again.  Or, if someone doesn't like the 'Divine potential'
part, then think of it is a 'right relationship with the Divine', because in
essence, it is the same thing.

Satan is our addictions, obsessions, cruelty, meanness, abuse, darkness, and 
so on.  Christ calls us out of these things, and shows us the way to 'let our 
Light show through' - that Divine spark that exists in all of us.  It's a
struggle to raise out of our 'lower selves' to become our 'higher selves',
and what Christ did was to show us the way, and to show us that is is better
to do this because of the possibilities of what lay ahead for us if we did.

The above is my opinion only, and my current level of understanding as it
exists at this time.

Cindy
                                   

    Cindy,
    
    I don't think I've read another note from which more sincere love has
    emoted.  You are obviously a very introspective and objective woman.
    
    My Pastor has been preaching a series on the Beatitudes and has asked
    us to view the beatitudes differently then we've ever meditated on them
    before.. he's asked us to view them as stairsteps, one building upon
    the other.
    
    The *first* beatitude is "Blessed are they who are poor in spirit
    [notice little s], for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.
    
    Poor in [s]pirit, means one who has a proper evaluation of one's self
    or one who knows their weaknesses and their strengths and has accepted
    their *self*.   One who has a proper evaluation recognizes that they
    are not God and accepts the one True God in Heaven.  One who knows
    their strengths and weaknesses and has accepted self, also is one who
    can love unconditionally others.
    
    Anyway, as I read your note, I saw a person who knows their strengths
    and weaknesses and who has taken the insight into human nature and
    translated many Biblical principles beyond the boundaries that
    Scripture itself has noted.  
    
    I, too, am one who is extremely introspective and have been on the
    *path of enlightenment*.  I rejected this path for one reason and one
    reason alone, it doesn't follow God's path... it runs directly parallel
    and oftimes permeates of Christian attiributes and truths... but its
    parallel and its not on the path... imho.
    
    However, I must state that this *path of enlightenment* beyond Biblical
    teachings did allow me to recognize the gifts God has given me, that
    under my dysfunctional set of beliefs, didn't allow.  It helped me to
    change dysfunction into function as I had to make a decision about that
    which I believed to be *eternal* and that which I believed to be
    *perpetual*.  In other words the belief that one lifetime or many
    lifetimes were possiblities.
    
    The Bible has given *me* answers to many of the questions about this
    subject... and not justified alone by the scripture which says, "it is
    appointed unto a man once to live...", but through other validations in
    regards to *eternal* life, not *perpetuated* life.
    
    Of course, I believe the Bible to be true and inerrant, God-breathed..
    and granted this was a *choice* that I made.  Those who *choose* a
    different belief in regards to the Bible, would most likely find my
    convictions very encumbering not *free* to feel, express, and *be* all
    that they can be... [I've had that said to me before].  However, I have
    found my life free, able to feel and express, and be all that I can be
    not of my own accord, but through Christ Jesus.  His empowerment
    through the Holy Spirit, doesn't restrict...even though I don't believe
    in women Preachers.  I've found contentment, joy, peace and security in
    knowng my role not only in my family, but in the family of God.
    
    For without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin... and
    whilst karma may be placed from others on a spiritual leader, it is
    only the pure/clean blood of Christ that can give eternal life.
    
    In  His Love,
    Nancy

    Cindy,
    
    I don't really understand Karma but I appreciate your offering an
    alternative interpretation.  I will reread your note again when I have
    more time to reflect on it. 
    
    Patricia

    
    Re.19
    
    Nancy,
    
    Thank you for saying that.  I am truly touched.
    
    May God bless,
    
    Cindy

re.0

	Incarnation:	God came into man

	Crucifixion:	God died in man & man died in God

	Resurrection:	Man overcame through the life of God

	Ascension:	Man was brought into God

	Transmitting:	God pours Himself out as the Life-giving
			Spirit to whomsoever will..



Other than that it was pretty uneventful.  8*)

Ace

    re: .22
    
    Ace, that is helpful.  It makes sense.
    
    Is your answer physical, logical, archetypal, metaphorfic?
    
    Historic or spiritual?
    
    Patricia

-1

	Patricia,

	I'm tempted to say yes to all of them.  8*)

	It is historic and spiritual, that is, the nature is spiritual and
it is a milestone in God's personal history and the christians as well.

	It is physical and logical. Not a metophor or type for some other
reality. It is a divine reality.

regards,
ace



	

    So far this is how I have pieced together the Bible regarding the Cross
    and ressurection.  Is this accurate?  Any comments?
    
    The  Historic Jesus is fully human.  The Christ is fully
    Divine.  The parodox is in the incarnation.  The breaking in of the
    fully divine God into a human historic person.  The Christ is defined
    in Paul and in John as preexisting the historic Jesus and existing
    after the historic Jesus.  The fully human Historic Jesus did in fact
    die. In his ressurection, he is transformed into somethin different. 
    A new Creation.  A transformation from a earthly body to a spiritual body
    according to  Paul.
    
    By being in Christ and allowing Christ to be in us, each of us can by
    adoption be sons and daughters of God.
    
    In a fashion each of us participate in the life, death, and transformation
    of Jesus.  First we participated in Adam the old man who was in God, who 
    became separate from God.  Humanity is separate from God until we also 
    participate in Christ who transforms us back into life with God through the death on
    the cross and the resurrection.  Now the reality is both a historic
    reality and a non historic reality in that Moses and David are also
    identified in the bible as participating in Christ prior to the time of
    the historic Jesus.  All women and men, those who predate and those who
    post date the historic Jesus, participate in his life death and
    ressurrection.  That is the paradox of the historic and the non
    historic.
    
    

    The thesis itself sounds accurate.  One question, what conclusions can
    be drawn from this study?
    
    

Sounds Biblical to me.

    Thank you for the feedback.  It is good to start with a similiar
    understanding of what the Bible in fact says.
    
    As for conclusions, I still have some work to do.
    
    Patricia

    Your summary in .25 concurs with many I've read.  I'm afraid my own
    theology is not nearly so tidy, Patricia. ;-}
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    RE: .25
    
    Sounds good to me too. How's that for some common ground?
    
    Maybe there is more we agree to, than disagree with.
    
    Marc H.

    One of the reasons that I like  Paul so much in spite of some of the 
    things in Paul that I do not accept is that I can relate to his conversion 
    experience on the road to Damascus.  Four years ago I went through an 
    experience which I call my "conversion experience"  Unlike Paul's it was 
    not a flash of light and an immediate experience but was a gradual awaken 
    that happened over these last four years but was particularly intense 
    during the summer of 1991.  During that period I was waking up regularly 
    at around 3 AM and writing in my journal, writing poetry, and even 
    painting.  One of my pictures in a large bright yellow Cross on a 
    mountain.  Here are two of the poems/prayers I wrote during this period.  
    This is significant because before this I have never written any poetry or 
    even thought about writing poetry.
    
    This experience has convinced me that revelation can bubble up from inside 
    of us.
    
    
    Bloody Feet
    
    Praying hands and bloody feet
    Symbols both are the
    The young girl lies on the bed
    touching the bumpy wall
    sometimes touching the bloody feet.
    
    It is a Catholic symbol
    and the girl is not Catholic
    yet  How many nights does she Lie in bed
    Staring at the bloody feet.
    
    Why is that symbol on the wall
    At the grandmother's house.
    Does the Grandmother love the girl?
    Does the Girl love the grandmother?
    Does either know how to love?
    
    Praying hands and bloody feet
    Symbols both are they
    The young girl lies in the bed
    Touching the bloody feet.
    Why is that symbol on the wall?
    
    pdf
    10/91
    ***************************
    Mystery
    
    My head is buzzing
    It is full of something I do not understand
    I am on a journey
    To where I do not know
    yet I trust
    
    Mysterious things have happened to me
    changing me, driving me, propelling me
    forward into the unknown.
    
    God is who God is
    I am who I am
    I trust, I believe,
    I am alive
    There is a mysterious buzzing in my head
    
    Amen
    
    PDF
    10/91
    *******************************************
    
    The "praying hands" symbol was a title of an article I read in the
    first Theology book I read.  An Examined Faith by James Luther Adams. 
    As an introduction the book was very hard for me and I did not remember
    much about many of the articles.  It was only the image that I remember
    about this particular article.  When I went back and read the article
    again after writing the poem, I found that it was an address to
    Divinity School students.  
    
    

    
    Well done, Patricia.
    
    Cindy

    re: .25
    
    I know this reply is about a month old....
    
    It is probably just the structure of the sentences, but I read your
    explaination of the human and Divine natures as being separatable
    and that Jesus only had an earthly life and then glorified life
    in time beginning with the incarnation.
    
    If this is what you were expressing then I would say that it is not
    theologically correct at least in relationship to most Christian
    professions. 
    
    Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the 
    Godhead Trinity. His entire nature, human and Divine, existed from
    all time. There was no point in time that the Second Person of the
    Trinity had any different nature. That is, he did not have just a
    Divine nature until the incarnation and then, from that point on
    have two natures both human and Divine. 
    
    The Word was made flesh. Within and as part of Word existed the human
    person of Jesus, fully realized. Scripture says that Jesus Christ was
    the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Also, that all things were
    made in, through, for Christ.
    
    The manner in which the Second Person of the Trinity existed before
    his incarnation is a mystery that we cannot conceive, but his fullness
    existed before he became incarnate among us. 
    
    A Divinity did not 'possess' a human nature. Jesus Is fully human and
    fully Divine in nature -- each complete and inseparatable. He is the
    Christ not because Christ resided with him in an incarnation, but 
    because He is the one who, from all times, is the Second Person of
    the Trinity, the eternal Son of God, the God-Man. 
    
    Upon his resurrection, Jesus received his glorified body, or perhaps
    it would be better to say that he was now manifest in all his Glory.
    Jesus ascended to the Father where he was from the beginning.
    
    As humans, we perceive in very limited terms. We cannot comprehend 
    how Jesus Christ [not just Christ, but Jesus Christ] could exist
    as Son of God from all time yet still be born of a woman and the
    Holy Spirit. 
    
    Jesus was not made an 'honorary member' of a Father-Christ-Holy Spirit
    Godhead. This would be to either separate God in some way or add to
    Him. God is uncreated throughout all times and this is true of Jesus
    Christ. It is his INCARNATION which occured among us.
    
    Peace,
    
    Mary

re.25

	Nice summary Patricia. I would add one comment on the last point..

>All women and men, those who predate and those who
>    post date the historic Jesus, participate in his life death and
>    ressurrection. 

	Better to say "will participate". Hebrews refers to these saints of old
(those of the Old Covenant) as a great cloud of witnesses (Hebrews 12:1 ref to
Heb 11)) in a waiting state. They will eventually enter into the full enjoyment
of God's alloted portion to all His redeemed people for eternity. They in faith
looked forward to Christ, while we believe in Christ in faith after the fact.
However, the additional difference is that we as believers enjoy a foretaste of
His eternal portion (the promise of the Spirit) while they (the Old Covenant
believers) are waiting to enter in to that enjoyment which will be a full taste.

	I liked your summary.

Regards,
Ace

    Thanks Ace,
    
    It's been a while since I wrote that note.  It was worthwhile to reread
    it.
    
    I got my Fall registration catalog from Andover Newton and am pleased
    to see that the part time instructor who taught the NEw Testament II
    course last winter will also teach New Testament I, which I am eager to
    begin in September.  It is my one course a semester plan.  I have done
    my journey through the New Testament backwards, but it has been
    inspiring.  From Corinthians to the rest of the letters and now to the
    Gospels.  I think I am most eager to study the book of John which I
    believe will provide a wonderful complement to Paul's letters.
    
                                         Patricia
    
    

re.35

	Patricia,

	If you are interested, I have some very very very good references on
John. You are welcome to borrow them. Or if you prefer I'll be glad to offer a
viewpoint.

Here or offline, whatever works for you...

Regards,
ace

    I suspect we will go through the gospels in sequence so it will be late
    fall before we get to John.  I would appreciate your perspective.  I
    may not be able to respond to it for a while since it has been a long
    time since I read John.  I can let you know later if I need the
    references.  For starts I need to start with the Bible and I have
    commited myself to finishing the Wisdom books of the Bible before the
    end of the summer and to finish a biography of Martin Luther that I
    started two months ago and put down.  I'm comfortable discussing John
    either here or off line.  More people can participate if we do it here.
    
                              Patricia