Thanks. I've read most of your posts and sensed this was, in fact, your view. Do you also recognize (literally) John's account of Jesus' words:
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day" (Jn 6:44).
I do. The implication also, to me, is that no amount of proselytizing on my part (or Jesus' part, for that matter, two millennia ago) will convince another of his claim to be the Son of God except the Father himself give this person conviction of the same. This would also imply that no written history or oral account has that power either, whether it stem from India, West Africa or the Middle East.
So then, if you also recognize this, what was the point of the so-called, "Great Commission," to go forth and preach the gospel to the whole world? Why was it necessary to forestall the end until this had been accomplished? Or is this doctrine one of those pearls of consensus got of Constantine's lock-up in Nicaea?"
I'd welcome Gene's thoughts on this as well. In particular, what further implication this may have for a discussion relative to the origin of Christ. I may be mistaken, but my impression is that a man or woman claiming to be a master, or guide, or initiator is, in fact, the catalyst . . .
Warm regards for all,
Ps. Rob, this maybe the topic for a separate thread, but I'd love to get your take on the "Grail." Specifically, do you see this as a literal relic (hidden in France, as some suggest), or is it meant as a metaphor that perhaps better illustrates an idea found in scripture?