The Other Jesus Review Questions
Question: What do you think about Christians who blame the Jews for the crucifixion?
Answer: Actually, it is not accurate to blame them for the crucifixion and it seems the only people who are blaming the Jews and using that as an excuse to persecute them and steal their property are either admitted unbelievers or deluded so-called believers; but it is a very common conception, usually perpetrated by atheists and other nonbelievers, that the Christians hate the Jews. As we well know, Jesus was a Jew and so were all the Apostles and first believers.
Question (continued): Not to mention what the Nazis did to them in the name of "The Church" [?]
This is actually another misconception: Although the Nazis were able to get a lot of the Catholics and Protestants to compromise their faiths, that does not mean that the Nazis were any less antichrist. In churches all over Germany during the Third Reich, the Bible was replaced with a sword and Hitler's book Mein Kampf, and the cross was replaced by the Swastika. Because so many "Christians" in Europe had completely swallowed the liberal theology, there was no more basis to hold up the Scriptures as a reliable authority, so it was an easy step to begin believing that God was revealing Himself in a new way through the Nazis ideology! Here are a few quotes from Hitler that show his extreme antichristian flavor: The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler: Night of 11th-12th July, 1941: "National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p. 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday: "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p. 43)
Question: You wrote about 20th century liberal Christian scholars who believed that "miracles in the NT documents were fabrications added by the early church". Actually, I have heard of one Rudolf Bultmann who tried to demythologize the NT. Was he one of them?
Answer: Bultmann is the main figure for the whole way of thinking, but he was only one among many. You are right that he was the one who wrote some highly influential books about "demythologizing the NT." It seems his basic assumptions were that miracles were not possible.
Question: I am very interested in history and your review made me curious about the history of Catholicism vs Protestantism. But my resources are very limited. Can you tell me where to get more materials about these subjects? I have read a book by Antonia Fraser "The Six Wives of Henry VIII," so I know a little about the conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism in the 16th century. I think it was really terrible when people start to use religion to forward their own political and personal desires.
Answer: Probably the best known book about Martin Luther is Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther by Roland Bainton. Anything Bainton has written is very easy reading and historically accurate. The Reformation in Britain was completely different than the German and Swiss reformation movements. Although the German and Swiss movements also had social and political influences which contributed to their advent, the heart of the reform was theological. In Britain, the heart of the reform was political, if I understand it right, because the pope refused to annul Henry VIII's most recent marriage failure. Theology followed, but politics took the first step -- and even today there is a lot of talk about the Anglican Church merging back into the Roman Church, but they still have some problems to work out about women priests, homosexuality, etc.
On a strong theological platform the Swiss and German reformers showed that the "office of the pope" was the seat of the antichrist (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3ff), because he demanded submission to himself for salvation ("Except a person be submitted to the pope, he cannot be saved"), and placed his own ecclesiastical authority above the Scriptures.
This same spirit exists in Romanism today and liberal theology has been a nice relative to have around because it undermines the authority of Scripture, thus placing the authority of the church on an even par with Scripture in theory, but above Scripture in practice. Liberal theology at its worst is found in the commentary of the St. Joseph edition of the Bible, complete with the official Roman imprimatur. I have had Catholics argue with me that "the Bible came from the church, not the church from the Bible!" Included in the statement are numerous assumptions about church history which are skewed to fit the Roman religion.
Question: I can understand your strong objection that a Roman Catholic Pope should be placed as the spokesman for all Christians. But on the other side, is there anyone who could be called the spokesman for the Protestants?
Actually, the pope is not even a good spokesman for all Catholics. I do not believe there can be a spokesman for all Protestants either, but the author of "The Other Jesus" would have been much more honest if conservative scholars were consulted; someone who at least believes the Bible is the inspired Word of God and believes in what it says as the primary source of truth. Such a person may not even be a good representative of the "visible church" which is seen by the world, but he would be a good representative of the "invisible church" which knows God according to His revelation in Christ.
Question: You seem to be very much against the Pope's asking for forgiveness!
Maybe my writing was a bit ambiguous there, sorry if it was! But to tell the truth I kind of resent the fact that the pope was set up, in the article, as the authority of Christians all over the world and then he goes to Israel and Palestine to confess "Christian" sins.
The main point I wanted to make however, was that I do not agree with Protestants and those who think of themselves as in the forefront of Protestant Christianity joining in with the Roman religion and confessing its sins as their own. I wonder if their actions fit what we see Jesus recognizing in one of our biblical examples: "And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets." (Matt. 23:30-31)
Why should we claim that we are the children of those who murdered, raped and stole from the Holy Land population? Personally, I can relate more to the Old Testament prophets who were killed and would call them "our forefathers"; or those who were Christian, but not Roman, who were also killed in the Crusades, rather than call those who killed them, "our forefathers"! I can relate to those who were put on the rack during the inquisition, but I can't relate to those who turned the crank. I can even relate to Peter as he denied the Lord, but I can't relate to those who tried to expose him for punishment because "He is one of them!" I see this whole trend among Protestants as perhaps a give-away as to where some of their hearts are really at in this new fad of "Representational Repentance."
Coincidentally, many of them are very comfortable in fellowship with the pope,-works-and-Mary-oriented Roman church, even when it has still not repented of its idolatry and replacing the authority of Scripture with the teaching authority of the church. The fact that the Roman church is now saying, "If we had been there in the days of our forefathers, we would not have done what they did!" is no comfort to me, because there is still no evidence the Romanists have turned to The Other Jesus.
Some of those who are leaders of this new movement in the Protestant church are traveling around the world repenting of every sin imaginable, and they seem to have great effects upon their hearers, yet I know some of them personally and the ones I know haven't even repented of their own personal sins against good Christians whose lives they have greatly damaged! It seems they are willing to admit the sins of their forefathers, but they refuse to admit their own present day sin. Is my understanding wrong in all this stuff? Or is this a repeat performance of what took place when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their white-washed hypocrisy? There is a lot I am still trying to understand completely.
When someone tried to shoot the pope a decade or so ago, and he gave all credit to the "virgin Mary" for saving him, I had the strong impression, based on Scripture, that he is not even a Christian, even though he steals much from the Christian vocabulary and claims the authority of Christ as his own. At a Roman Catholic World Youth Event in August, 1993, the pope rose and said, "Let us pray. [pause] All powerful and ever living God, you raised the sinless virgin Mary, mother of your Son, body and soul to the glory of heaven, may we receive her as our final goal and come to share her glory, we ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever," and all the people said "amen." Although the contemporary Roman church has a nicer face, it is still the same church which left the faith many centuries before the Reformation, murdered many of God's spokesmen throughout the centuries (including Wycliffe, Hus, etc.), anathematized justification by grace through faith and caused a tremendous need for a return to The Other Jesus. In our love for Catholics we should attempt to inform them about the beautiful Gospel of the Lord Jesus.
Question: "I don't think befriending a Muslim means compromising my faith and condoning their beliefs. ( My colleagues are Muslim, and so is my manager). I do not agree with them, but I don't condemn them either. I pity them for treading the wrong path, and I fervently hope that they would someday see the truth. I see the Pope's gesture as an attempt to break the vicious cycle of hatred that had revolved for centuries.
I agree completely with befriending Muslims, praying for them and attempting to lead them to Christ, but I refuse to identify true Christianity with those who are out murdering Muslims and raping their women. I think it would be much better to help them realize that all those who say "Lord, Lord" are not really Christian. I have a good relationship with the Muslims here in Kampung Duri, I truly love them from my heart and desire that they will come to the knowledge of the truth -- I want them to know a Jesus who loves Muslims also -- A Jesus who could have called a multittude of angels to rescue Him from the cross, but refused to take part in the warfare of this world. A Jesus who would never allow His children to go off on a rampage of murder and theft.
In Christ, G. Lee