Skip to comments.Joe Sobran, R.I.P. [Joseph Sobran, 1946 - 2010]
Posted on 09/30/2010 7:54:18 PM PDT by Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo
click here to read article
I understand and appreciate what you are saying. I guess when I said “unfair,” I meant the extent and manner of the ostacization, not the rationale for it.
Who is "Teresa of Lourdes"?
Beyond Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John [and a tiny handful of others], it's all just hearsay.
Luke tells us the history of Paul in Acts, including Paul's personal encounter with Jesus.
If we are to discard Paul, we must also discard Luke as an unreliable witness.
And that would create further difficulties.
I would also point out that much of the Gospels is inescapably "hearsay" because all four evangelists relate events at which they themselves were admittedly not present.
The problem was that Joe flouted the First Law of Holes, which is to stop digging once you find yourself in one.
Sobran used to be one of my must-reads. I remember being shocked at the time, when Sobran's tone suddenly changed, and it became evident that it wasn't just a one-off rant. After not too long, I crossed him off my list, and I was far from alone in that.
I checked Sobran's writings a couple of years later, just to see, and it just as shrill, and (understandably) a whole lot more bitter. That was it -- I was through.
Still, RIP to Mr. Sobran. I hope in his final days he found the peace he needed.
Maybe they meant Teresa of the Andes?
The last time I saw Joe — which was, perhaps, at the incipience of his fall — he seemed morose, but over the edge. Do you think he developed a drinking problem?
Please be compassionate. Often, one of the first signs of serious illness is a person’s change in thinking and personality. I was not aware of what was making Joe sick, but many cancers may begin with deep depression and such changes, if you review medical literature. May God rest his soul.
That would cause many a man to simply snap.
That goes too far (as did the previous post to which I objected).
You seem to be setting up an either/or test for Scripture (and by extension, to Christianity as a whole), that is not needed and possibly harmful.
I see the point -- but I think it's possible to take such points too far.
No clue -- I only knew him through his writing. It just seemed to me that such a sudden change in tone, and such tenacity in defending it, wasn't something a healthy man would do.
Excluding Paul from Christianity is going too far.
If insisting on Paul is too strong, what then would qualify as being too weak a standard?
That road leads to Jesus Seminar land, in my opinion.
While I don't necessarily agree with his take, I guess I don't see where he's "excluding" Paul from Christianity.
As for me, just as an example, I find myself uneasy about some of the discourses in John's Gospel -- there are places where I suspect that, rather than Jesus' own words, we're getting John's gloss on Jesus' words, to address arguments that date from the decades after Jesus' ascension. (I'm not alone in this. In his commentary, William Barclay sometimes discusses the objections to which the Evangelist must have been responding in a given discourse...)
This doubt doesn't affect my trust in the overall legitimacy of the discourse, much less John's Gospel in general, and even less my trust for the overall body of Scripture.
Am I somehow not a Christian if I see more of John in some of those places, than Jesus?
If you're rejecting John dismissively as "Yochanan of Patmos" and saying that his Gospel has nothing to do with Jesus, then this isn't Christian.
If you are indeed accepting "the overall legitimacy of the discourse" and not rejecting the Gospel of John as an imposture alien to the true Gospel, then that would fall within in the scope of Christianity, in my view.
Then perhaps you need to soften your stance on the following: "If one considers any portion of the New Testament not to be divinely revealed Scripture, one belongs to a different religion than Christianity." (emphasis mine)
That's a fair comment. Let's phrase it this way as a correction:
If one maintains that any portion of the New Testament cannot be divinely revealed Scripture, one belongs to a different religion than Christianity.
As Cardinal Newman said: "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt" - as long as someone is willing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, the collective wisdom of the Church over two millenia contains more insight and wisdom than he does, then he remains in the fold.
Reading Sobran in Chronicles made up for losing Sam Francis. Both gone now, the neocons must be right!
of course the 9/11 attacks stem from 1) our involvement in middle east being pro-Israel and 2) aggravated by being pro-abort and pro-homo and 3)then being so stupid as a nation to let these people in our country to “study” etc
He truly was a gifted writer. He had a contrarian streak it seemed undoubtedly accentuated by the treatment he received. Maybe he overemphasized the question of Jewish influence because of how he was treated and his arguments shouted down. Maybe he did some things more to tweak his gutless detractors who pretended to be intellectual but refused to debate.
The interests of Israel do not coincide 100% with USA. Is that anti-semitic to state? Some of us prefer a George Washington foreign policy, avoiding foreign entanglements and spilling of American blood on soil 5000 miles from our own homes. Muslims in middle east are not nearly as big a threat to us as muslims in America. Why do we go there to fight and keep on letting them in our country?