Miscellaneous Illuminations

'Descubre uno de los libros más incomprendidos, ignorados y subestimados de toda la Biblia: Cantar de los Cantares. César Vidal ofrece una exposición magistral que desentraña con profundidad y claridad Cantares 2:1–17 y 3:5, en una predicación directa y transformadora donde Salomón realiza un notable flashback para revelar la belleza, la pureza y la dignidad del noviazgo según el diseño de Dios.' 'César Vidal. Antes de casarte, mira esto: Cantar de los Cantares COMO NUNCA lo habías escuchado.' Una duración de poco menos de 56 minutos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFB2pQ3EctM Una de las varias conferencias de Vidal sobre la exégesis del libro del Antiguo Testamento, Cantar de los Cantares

'What are cults? Why are they so dangerous? In this sermon on Ephesians 6:10–13 titled “Cults,” Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones says that cults are groups that are not Christian, but nevertheless claim to be. They teach things that fundamentally deny the Christian faith and gospel. Often, cults are centered around one person who claims to have received a special divine revelation. These cults either deny the authority of Scripture altogether, or they put another authority on equal level or above that of the Bible. Many of these cults minimize or deny the doctrines of sin, the incarnation, and the atonement. Unlike heresies, cults are groups that are entirely outside of the church and Christianity. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones says that cults are one of the many ways that the devil deceives people. False teaching can and does destroy people’s lives because it sets them on the path to destruction by denying the true gospel. This is why the church must be clear that the gospel is by faith alone in Christ who is both truly God and man.' Sermon description of sermon #4199 titled, 'Cults' - a sermon on Ephesians 6:10-13 preached by Welsh minister Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981) on Feb. 19, 1961 https://www.mljtrust.org/sermon/cults/

“But what I meant by ‘Romanticism’ when I wrote the Pilgrim’s Regress — and what I would still be taken to mean on the title page of this book — was not exactly any one of these seven things. What I meant was a particular recurrent experience which dominated my childhood and adolescence and which I hastily called ‘Romantic’ because inanimate nature and marvellous literature were among the things that evoked it. I still believe that the experience is common, commonly misunderstood, and of immense importance: but I know now that in other minds it arises under other stimuli and is entangled with other irrelevancies and that to bring it into the forefront of consciousness is not so easy as I once supposed. I will now try to describe it sufficiently to make the following pages intelligible.” Quoting from the author’s preface to the third edition of ‘The Pilgrim’s Regress’ (first published 1933) by C. S. Lewis (1898 – 1963) https://t.me/Miscellaneous_Illuminations/8024

“It will be seen, of course, that many writers are ‘romantic’ on more than one account. Thus Morris comes in my first class as well as my second, Mr. Eddison in my second as well as my third, Rousseau in my sixth as well as my fifth, Shelley in my sixth and fifth, and so on. This may suggest some common root, whether historical or psychological, for all seven: but the real qualitative difference between them is shown by the fact that a liking for any one does not imply liking for the others. Though people who are ‘romantic’ in different senses may turn to the same books, they turn to them for different reasons, and one half of William Morris’s readers do not know how the other half live. It makes all the difference in the world whether you like Shelley because he provides a mythology or because he promises a revolution. Thus I myself always loved the second kind of Romanticism and detested the fourth and fifth kinds; I liked the first very little and the third only after I was grown-up — as an acquired taste.” Quoting from the author’s preface to the third edition of ‘The Pilgrim’s Regress’ (first published 1933) by C. S. Lewis (1898 – 1963) https://t.me/Miscellaneous_Illuminations/8024

“1 . Stories about dangerous adventure — particularly, dangerous adventure in the past or in remote places — are ‘romantic’. In this sense Dumas is a typically ‘romantic’ author, and stories about sailing ships, the Foreign Fegion, and the rebellion of 1745, are usually ‘romantic’. 2. The marvellous is ‘romantic’, provided it does not make part of the believed religion. Thus magicians, ghosts, fairies, witches, dragons, nymphs, and dwarfs are ‘romantic’; angels, less so. Greek gods are ‘romantic’ in Mr. James Stephens or Mr. Maurice Hewlett; not so in Homer and Sophocles. In this sense Malory, Boiardo, Ariosto, Spenser, Tasso, Mrs. Radcliffe, Shelley, Coleridge, William Morris, and Mr. E. R. Eddison are ‘romantic’ authors. 3. The art dealing with ‘Titanic’ characters, emotions strained beyond the common pitch, and high-flown sentiments or codes of honour is ‘romantic’. (I welcome the growing use of the word ‘Romanesque’ to describe this type.) In this sense Rostand and Sidney are ‘romantic’, and so (though unsuccessfully) are Dryden’s Heroic Dramas, and there is a good deal of ‘romanticism’ in Corneille. I take it that Michelangelo is, in this sense, a ‘romantic’ artist. 4. ‘Romanticism’ can also mean the indulgence in abnormal, and finally in anti-natural, moods. The macabre is ‘romantic’, and so is an interest in torture, and a love of death. This, if I understand them, is what M. Mario Praz and M. D. de Rougemont would mean by the word. In this sense Tristan is Wagner’s most ‘romantic’ opera; Poe, Baudelaire, and Flaubert, are ‘romantic’ authors; Surrealism is ‘romantic’. 5. Egoism and Subjectivism are ‘romantic’. In this sense the typically ‘romantic’ books are Werther and Rousseau’s Confessions, and the works of Byron and Proust. 6. Every revolt against existing civilisation and conventions whether it look forward to revolution, or backward to the ‘primitive’ is called ‘romantic’ by some people. Thus pseudo-Ossian, Epstein, D. H. Lawrence, Walt Whitman, and Wagner are ‘romantic’. 7. Sensibility to natural objects, when solemn and enthusiastic, is ‘romantic’. In this sense The Prelude is the most ‘romantic’ poem in the world: and there is much ‘romanticism’ in Keats, Shelley, de Vigny, de Musset, and Goethe.” Quoting from the author’s preface to the third edition of ‘The Pilgrim’s Regress’ (first published 1933) by C. S. Lewis (1898 – 1963) https://t.me/Miscellaneous_Illuminations/8024

“PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION: On re-reading this book ten years after I wrote it, I find its chief faults to be those two which I myself least easily forgive in the books of other men: needless obscurity, and an uncharitable temper. There were two causes, I now realise, for the obscurity. On the intellectual side my own progress had been from ‘popular realism’ to Philosophical Idealism; from Idealism to Pantheism; from Pantheism to Theism; and from Theism to Christianity. I still think this a very natural road, but I now know that it is a road very rarely trodden. In the early thirties I did not know this. If I had had any notion of my own isolation, I should either have kept silent about my journey or else endeavoured to describe it with more consideration for the reader’s difficulties. As things were, I committed the same sort of blunder as one who should narrate his travels through the Gobi Desert on the assumption that this route was as familiar to the British public as the line from Euston to Crewe. And this original blunder was soon aggravated by a profound change in the philosophical thought of our age. Idealism itself went out of fashion. The dynasty of Green, Bradley, and Bosanquet fell, and the world inhabited by philosophical students of my own generation became as alien to our successors as if not years but centuries had intervened. The second cause of obscurity was the (unintentionally) ‘private’ meaning I then gave to the word ‘Romanticism’. I would not now use this word to describe the experience which is central in this book. I would not, indeed, use it to describe anything, for I now believe it to be a word of such varying senses that it has become useless and should be banished from our vocabulary. Even if we exclude the vulgar sense in which a ‘romance’ means simply ‘a love affair’ (Peer and Film Star Romance) I think we can distinguish at least seven kinds of things which are called ‘romantic’.” Quoting from the author’s preface to the third edition of ‘The Pilgrim’s Regress’ (first published 1933) by C. S. Lewis (1898 – 1963) https://archive.org/details/pilgrims-regress-cs-lewis?

'Hudson Taylor in Early Years -The Growth of a Soul' (1911) - Volume 1 of 2 by Dr. and Mrs Howard Taylor Read online https://archive.worldinvisible.com/library/hudsontaylor/hudsontaylorv1/hudsontaylorv1tc.htm

‘The Dawkins Letters’ by David Robertson. https://www.bethinking.org/atheism/the-dawkins-letters David Robertson is a minister in the Free Church of Scotland, based at St Peter's Church, Dundee. This resource is in 11 parts 1. Dawkins' Delusion 2. A Religious Non-Believer 3. Respect 4. The God Hypothesis 5. Arguments for God's Existence 6. Why there almost certainly is a God 7. The Roots and Evil of Religion 8. The Roots of Morality: why are we good? 9. The Good Book and the Moral Zeitgeist 10. Childhood Abuse and Gap Theology 11. Final Letter to the Reader - Why Believe?

‘What Is the Evidence for Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch?’ by Rev. Ian M. Thomas, updated on 24.7.26 https://bibleproclaimer.com/q1143-evidence-for-mosaic-authorship-of-the-pentateuch/ 'Authorship of the Pentateuch' by James Rochford https://evidenceunseen.com/authorship-of-the-pentateuch 'Did Moses really write the Pentateuch?' by Anna Kitko, 5.6.19 https://ratiochristi.org/did-moses-really-write-the-pentateuch/

Thought-provoking presentation from Dr. James Anderson https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=rmDQ6G4mZcM&ra=m

‘Acharya S is a skeptic with an interest in mythology who has written a book entitled The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. This book presents an hypothesis of how Christianity came into being. Although it has received no attention from scholarship, with the lone exception of a negative book review and that from an atheist scholar,[1] The Christ Conspiracy has nonetheless gained support from a number of laypersons. The occasion for this paper is to assess Murdock’s major claims in a brief manner in terms of their accuracy and whether her book is a worthwhile contribution on the origin of Christianity. The paper will sample some of her major claims. No attempts will be made to defend the Christian worldview.’ Book review (2001) of The Christ Conspiracy by Mike Licona https://www.bethinking.org/is-christianity-true/the-christ-conspirac

‘Although Jesus claimed to be the divine Son of God, His favorite self-designation by far was ‘Son of Man’. How do we know that Jesus actually referred to Himself as the Son of Man and what does it mean?’ Quote from the opening of an article by Mike Licona called "Jesus - The Son Of Man?" https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/jesus-the-son-of-man

‘If Jesus didn’t claim to be divine, then, when his disciples claimed that he was, were they promulgating a deliberate lie about their teacher? That seems highly unlikely: ‘if the story in the Gospels is a myth, if the historical Jesus never claimed divinity . . . then this myth was invented by Jesus’ apostles themselves, not by later generations or the early Christian community. But why would the apostles lie? What would motivate such a massive conspiracy of deceit? . . . If they lied, what was their motive, what did they get out of it? What they got out of it was misunderstanding, rejection, persecution, torture, and martyrdom. Hardly a list of perks! And if they lied, why did not one of the liars ever confess this, even under torture? Martyrdom does not prove truth, but it certainly proves sincerity.”792’ Continued quote in ‘Getting as Jesus’ (2019) by Peter S. Williams

‘How could the Jewish disciples of a Jewish rabbi so radically misunderstand their teacher’s self-image in so blasphemous a manner? As Craig A. Evans writes: To assert that Jesus did not regard himself as in some sense God’s son makes the historian wonder why others did. From the earliest time “Jesus was regarded by Christians as the son of God. Why not regard him as the great Prophet, if that is all that he had claimed or accepted? Why not regard him as the great Teacher, if that had been all that he had ever pretended to be? Earliest Christianity regarded Jesus as Messiah and as son of God, I think, because that is how his disciples understood him and how Jesus permitted them to understand him.”791’ Quoting from ‘Getting as Jesus’ (2019) by Peter S. Williams

‘In sum, the author and audience of the Epistle of James were early-mid first-century Jewish monotheists who considered Jesus Christ to be their divine Lord. The evidence favors the traditional attribution of authorship to James of Jerusalem, the (half) brother of Jesus. This attribution both makes the high Christology of the letter all the more startling and suggests a publication date before AD 62 (when James was martyred). Even apart from the evidence for James of Jerusalem being the author, there’s every reason to date the epistle and its Christology to before the Jewish War that began in AD 66 (i.e. within 33 years of the crucifixion). Indeed, there’s strong evidence for Alister McGrath’s conclusion that James was written no later than “the late 50’s or early 60’s.”756 There’s some reason to think that Daniel B. Wallace (Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary) is correct when he concludes “that James was written . . . c. 44–45, making it the earliest writing in the New Testament canon.”757 As Phil Fernandes and Kyle Larson conclude: “A date of 45 AD for James’s epistle is not extreme.”758’ Excerpt from ‘Getting at Jesus’ (2019) by Peter S. Williams

‘In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins acknowledges that “Jesus probably existed . . .”623 Nevertheless, the admission is begrudging. It seems calculated to plant doubt in the uninformed reader’s mind. Dawkins writes that “it is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others, Professor G.A. Wells of the University of London . . .”624 Dawkins fails to inform readers that Wells is Professor Emeritus of German Language at Birkbeck College, London. In response to Dawkins’s use of Wells, John Dickson wryly asks us to: “Imagine the response from the new atheists if someone were to argue that a serious scientific case can be made that evolution by natural selection has never occurred and then offered as the sole authority a language professor.”625 Dawkins also fails to inform readers that since the late 1990s Wells has actually accepted that the gospels of Matthew and Luke “may contain a core of reminiscences of an itinerant Cynic-type Galilean preacher . . .”626’ Quoting from chapter 2 in ‘Getting at Jesus’ (2019) by Peter S. Williams

‘Having been content to draw attention to the existence of “historians who doubt the historical existence of Jesus”620 in 2011, Lawrence Krauss conceded in 2013 that Jesus “was a real, historical person.”621 Krauss said: “If you asked me, is the weight of historical evidence such that Jesus was a real historical figure, I would say, the weight of historical evidence is that Jesus was a historical figure . . . I do not dispute that the weight of historical evidence suggests that he was a real person.”622’ Quoting from chapter 2 in ‘Getting at Jesus’ (2019) by Peter S. Williams

“I don’t think you can take the easy way out by denying that Jesus ever existed . . .” —Michael Ruse [1940-2024] 619 Quote from chapter 2 in ‘Getting at Jesus’ (2019) by Peter S. Williams

‘In a 2013 debate in Melbourne, Lawrence Krauss tried to use the copycat thesis as an objection to William Lane Craig’s historical case for the resurrection; but under cross-examination Krauss conceded: “One may argue that these connections [between Jesus and pagan myths] are spurious, and I’m willing to accept that.”466 As Rice Broocks says: “the real myth is that the story of Christ was borrowed from other ancient myths.”’ Quote from chapter 2 in ‘Getting at Jesus’ (2019) by Peter S. Williams

‘As atheist philosopher Kai Nielsen acknowledges concerning the resurrection: “it wasn’t a myth that the Christian community tried to purvey, rather they were recording what they actually believed happened.”463’ [463: Nielsen quote from ‘An Atheist’s Rebuttal‘ in ‘Does God Exist?’ (1993) by J.P. MORELAND and KAI NIELSEN] Quoting from chapter 2 in ‘Getting at Jesus’ (2019) by Peter S. Williams