In Parallel Sayings Richard Hooper usesnthe words “most” or “many” when tied to “scholars” as if inherently authoritative. Take this example…
Many New Testament scholars, for instance, believe the apostle Paul’s out of body experiences were brought on by epileptic seizures- which, in turn, were brought on bychemical shifts within the brain, William James pointed out a century ago that even alcohol can induce mystical seizures"… and then goes on to explain brain chemical reactions in the brain… as if such absolute speculation could have any weight. It is more likely Paul was just intensely and intimately involved with the Ultimate Reality, the Lord Jesus, but in any case- what scholarship is there to confirm such an outrageous statement? None.
In another place he states that “Certain groups of scholars, such as the Jesus Seminar, suggest that as few as 18% of all the words attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels came from him, and even these are not in their original form.” The list of these kinds of assertions is long already, and mostly just as vague and unsupportable.
Over the next few chapters, however, the author bulds a pretty intricate Budhist/Hindu perspective using the sayings of Jesus (which are only 18% certified ;o)
I have only read about 100 pages so far, but the book is making what I consider to be a polite but blatant attempt to disembowel the gospel and interpret it through a Gnostic perspective that mytholizes(? ) every supernatural foundation of Christian belief and re-interprets the words of Jesus(the ones out of the 18% that work for him I suppose) into a Budhist/Hindu concept.
While I agree that Jesus’ words do need to be looked at from an mystical mind-set, I found Hooper making generalized statements about Jesus that I thought revealed an intellectual prejudice that went beyong objectivity- but resembled the same kind of attitude that westerners have in reverse. Jesus is neither western or eastern. He is unique.
It appears( he says so at least) that a major influence in his turn from Christianity was an experience where he asked a pastor, as a seminary student, if he really believed an Indian person who grew up Hindu and never heard of Jesus would go to hell. When answered in the affirmative- he made a huge turn towards eastern mystics- WHICH I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. Too bad he wasnot introduced to the true gospel at some point.
Primarily, I just disagree with his conclusions and definitely feel they presented in a strongly slanted way, not just in a pluralist direction, but essentially reducing all mysticism to a Hindu spirituality carrying a Budhist ethic. The book is an outright debunk of western Christian religion-WHICH I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ( )- but it is also an antithetical presentation to what any believer in the risen Christ believes, including many of what I consider the intrinsicly true foundations of the teachings of Jesus Christ. At such a point the pluralism disappates into an outright assault on the fundamental faith of “Christ crucified” (imo).
Hooper does not believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection, nor even a shadow of integrity in the histories or epistles contained in the Bible. It is all parabolic mythology or outright junk. In my opinion it is an anti-Christian piece of literature.
Of course, I am not saying this is your view, fatherlearningtolove, in toto, and I have enjoyed many aspects of the 6 chapters of your blog I have read and will continue to read… but you recommended the book, and it is an answer to some things I was wondering reading the blog. That’s why I asked where you were coming from regarding Jesus as Lord of All… I had no desire to offend or go on the offensive, just to clarify.
I think certain aspects of budhism are beautiful. As wisdom, there is much in it to be gained and I have always seen the similarities in areas because I studied Budhism and Krishna consciousness before I had my meeting with the ultimate reality and He revealed Himself as Christ crucified and called me to follow. Not everyone gets to experience that, but I did.
But I do see the cross as a WAY. That is how He revealed Himself to me. His way of self denial and the mystical aspects of His being the I AM- radiance of the Father’s glory and exact representation of His nature, as well as the work of spiritual seeking and growing- have been largely cut out of western Christianity and I have said for many years Jesus was probably more like a guru than any contemporary preacher or teacher I have seen- and definitely a mystic(for me, THE mystic)- but even with all of that, the core difference for me is His death, resurrection and ascenscion above all heavens, bearing the name above every name is undeniable to me- being, during my meeting with ultimate reality, integrated within the cells of my being so to speak.
Of course I would not expect anyone to take my word for that, but I do say it is true.