In Reason, Faith, and Tradition, why does Martin Albl say that the Christian understanding of Jesus is shocking and offensive?

In Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology, Martin Albl focuses on the relationship between faith and reason, challenging the notion that they are incompatible with one another. He argues that through studying this relationship within the framework of Catholic tradition, one can obtain a truer and more satisfying understanding of the world and human nature. In essence, Albl believes that this realization cannot be obtained through reason alone, and faith requires reason to cultivate and maintain a balanced worldview.

In his efforts to connect reason and faith, Albl spends time addressing the questions surrounding the historical Jesus in chapter 11. He discusses the various misinterpretations of Jesus’s life, personality, and actions:

“Contrary to the claims of some Christians, it is historically highly unlikely that Jesus went about ‘talking as if He was God,’ claiming that ‘He has always existed.’ Passages such as ‘Before Abraham was, I AM’ (John 8:58) are found only in the Gospel of John, which tends to develop the claims of the historical Jesus in the light of later theological reflections” (Albl, 302).

Because of these contradictory elements in the Gospels, Albl argues that we must critically analyze these scriptures to obtain “a more historically accurate portrait of the words and actions of the first-century Jew named Jesus of Nazareth” (Albl, 302-303). Albl proceeds to offer a pithy version of this form of analysis throughout Chapter 11, calling out several other mainstream Christian misconceptions of the historical Jesus. In addition, he argues that the actual moment of Jesus’s resurrection cannot be studied as an historical event.

Although Albl may not have used the words “shocking” or “offensive” in this book to describe the Christian understanding of Jesus, his work in chapter 11 implies that he has problems with the mainstream faith-based view of Jesus. Albl’s analysis reveals how the common Christian interpretation has blurred the lines of faith, reason, metaphor, and history—ultimately leading to a misinterpretation that undermines (or offends) the spiritual value of the religious tradition itself.

Works cited:

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona, MN: St. Mary’s Press, 2009.

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

nouns - what do you call the person who passes the trophies to the prize giver/presenter?

The person who gives out the trophies to the winners are called award presenters. So what do u call the person who passes the trophies to the presenter? Thanks!

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.

Notes

Search This Blog