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
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.