This book is in two halves, only one of which I was really interested in and enjoyed. I have enjoyed some of Horsley's other books but this one, while having good material was too bogged down in the first section on Roman religious practice, mainly of interest to the academic I suspect. I was also disappointed to discover that much of the material has been published before elsewhere.

Nevertheless there is some great material here that should be of value to those interested in the origins of Christianity and the work being done by the Jesus Seminar. Of particular interest to me was the point that Paul was not setting up a religion and cannot be called a Christian by today's definition.

Professor Horsley's anthology of essays (primarily by other authors), and his introductions, do much to appropriately redefine Saint Paul's writings within social and political contexts. Explicitly rejecting the notion that Paul is to be read exclusively as religious literature intended for a religious community, Horsley (et al.) painstakingly demonstrates that the preaching of the crucified Christ was a direct challenge to the Roman Empire. Similarly, the building of Christian communities around the proclamation of the resurrection were intentional rejections of secular values and order.

Living in an age when religion has too often been high-jacked by fundamentalists of all denominations and faith groups, to serve only petty theological agendas, Horsley's collection stands for us as a useful reminder that faith can be something more.

This is a useful anthology on an important subject in Pauline studies. Although the fourteen essays presented here have been published elsewhere, it is very helpful to have them collected in one place. Further, Richard Horsley's introductory material offers a significant synthesis of the material. In short, the collection depicts St Paul as developing an explicitly anti-imperial movement, in opposition to the all-pervasive emperor cult of Rome. Three aspects of this movement are focussed on: Theology (Parts 1 and 3), Patronage (Part 2) and church as an alternative society (Part 4). I would recommend this book to undergraduate students of the Bible, and indeed to anyone who doesn't see what politics has to do with the New Testament. I would also recommend Neil Elliott's 'Liberating Paul', some of which is reproduced in this volume.

This book sustains a promising essence concealed in a Christian straight-jacket. Its promise kept my attention through the whole work, but its final disappointment only served to remind me why I should not read modern Christian theology.

In that he is "nice" to Buddhism and the Buddha, I commend Richard Henry Drummond, Ph.D. That is, he doesn't take the wide spread Protestant stance that all other religions are worthless or demon-led. In fact, I can quote from pp.217 that "in spite of the distortions of Buddhist monasticism and the failures of popular religion, much if not most of that which has been noble and good in Asian history may be attributed to the influence of the Buddha." In the preface he truthfully forewarns us that,"no one, in academic context or not, operates from a life posture that can be called completely impartial or objective." His Christianity though is a far stance from anything near a fair objectivism. He knows that there is not the mathematical accuracy in regards to Christology that people are impressed with erroneously from John Dominic Crossan, but he begins with the view that we can derive a true outline of Christ's life. (I'm not suggesting that this should be denied, only that biases like this are a framework for his Christian views.) When comparing the lives and workings of the two thaumaturges, I could not believe some of the things that I read. "there is no reason of significance--historical, literary, or scientific-philosophical--to doubt that Jesus did perform mighty works, which we may call miracles, largely as reported in the New Testament accounts." (LAUGH... I suppose there aren't whole books written on that subject alone, namely against such a notion) What really restrains this book from its potential is the cherished 'uniqueness of Jesus.' This begins to play an active role in his analysis of Christ's miraculous resurrection which he in the end uses as a means to elevate Christ over Buddha. pp.150 says that, "I should like to explore the possibility that we have in the case of Jesus of Nazareth what we do not percieve in either Gautama, Zarathustra, or Muhammad; that is, a consciously chosen vicarious-redemptive role." He tries to preserve the seat of his uniqueness where he has the perfect chance to discuss the fascinating miraculous similarities extant betwixt Gautama and Yeshua. I thought without a doubt that he would deal with the alleged water-walking and storm-calming attributed to the Buddha and then the Christ. Not one mention!!! With our refusal to give up Christ's uniqueness, this implies mythical borrowing from the Axial Period. And if he actually did represent a "broader vision" this would be given spiritual attention and explanation. In the philosophies of the Christ and the Buddha, there is juxtaposition of spiritual teachings. He draws the similarities between the 'Kingdom of God' and 'Nirvana,' described as religiously transcendant but realizable in the world, and maintainable beyond. But in the end he seems reluctant to ever actually equate them, not to mention in the end still promulgating "the spirit of sacrifice and mystery of the cross" as our method of salvation, not this relationship with the spirit of the primordial tradition. Accordingly the comparisons are made more so with the Mahayana school than Theravadin, with the concepts of universal salvation.

Drummond's work and juxtaposition is very thorough and comprehensive, but as I have aimed to point out either ignorance or preservation of Jesus' uniqueness caused him to exclude some of the most valuable study between the Buddha and the Christ. I expected that a 'broad vision' comparing two religious leaders would not take the side of one of them, and that is where I was utterly disappointed. I expected the title to imply a "broader vision" than Christianity, that had room to hold Buddhism in equal importance, or even a quasi-Baha'i perspective as Buddha and Christ essentially being one in spirit as manifestations in different settings. But I realized this was not the case on pp.170, "the Christ event is unique; it is also the pivotal, the single most important event of human history."

I am very glad that a Christian author acknowledges the Buddha with high spiritual regard, but one question I would propose to Drummond, "Is he in Hell?"

I found this book to be informative and enlightening. I have always wanted to compare these two spiritual leaders and this book as helped me to start my own search. I found the writing easy to read and understand. Some of it was a bit wordy but that was no big deal.

This is a great book for people who want to know more about Catholicism. This book is rathered summarised that they infact missed out certain points of Catholicism. I meself is a Catholic. The book emphasizes alot on somethings like child baptism, and communion breaking. They should include things like famous saints, and famous Popes. Hope that there will be a book that shows more things that reflect Catholicism, and show our society to the non-believing world.

This is a nice book that explains a few basics of Catholicism. It is filled with wonderful illustrations and full color pictures. It doesnt touch on all important Catholic subjects, but it is a nice visual book for someone wanting to learn more about The Catholic Faith and its sacraments.

This book is not unimportant, especially to those in the Reorganized / Restorationist LDS [Mormon tradition] cultures centered primarily in Independence, MO who cling to the notion that the founder of The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints was never personally a revealer, teacher or practitioner of Polygamy. Rather, that he was a 'victim' of a conspiracy within the Mormon church in IL to introduce it. This despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, documented in scholarly works during the past decade alone... The book is nicely bound and printed. Would that it's content were as praiseworthy and historically accurate. Any serious student of LDS [Mormon] History will immediately recognize that to accept the authors interpretive theories requires tremendous leaps in logic with regard to their inferential conclusions about evidence at best circumstantial and at worst completely out of context.

Was Joseph Smith polygamous? Richard and Pamela Price, despite the insistence of most "scholars" that say he was a polygamist, makes a compelling case for Joseph Smith NOT being a polygamist. They mention Joseph's repeated statements, verbal and written, against polygamy, his excommunication of persons who believed in, advocated, and/or practiced polygamy, as well as taking people to court for polygamy or for saying he was a polygamist. Personally, I find this compelling. However, in the final analysis, the reader will have to get the book, read it, and decide the issue for themselves.

One of the main weaknesses of this work is that it does not adequately separate the narratives according to their gospel of origin and, therefore, neglects the redactional contribution of each writer. The analysis is limited and not nearly daring enough.

This book shares insights that are rarely recognized and, from my understanding of Hebrew, well-founded. A must-read for seekers of truth.

Mouw treats the 'non-believing' community as though they are perversions of what it is to be a human being. His dealings with sex are niave and faulty, furthermore his notion of people going to hell, that it is necessary to show the seriousness of sin, is devoid of christian love, and turns God into a petty vindictive and powerfull adversary to humanity rather than a loving and caring creator. In short, i am apauled by Maouw, and further apauled by the other fundi's like him.

Mouw delves into a helpful critique of how people, especially people who profess to be Christians, can interact in the world in a positive and helpful manner. The book is an easy read that humbly critiques as well as offers ideas for insightful ways of seeing how one's belief system can be developed to promote respect and positive civil discourse. I found especially helpful his description of the problem of "triumphalism" which is a concern to me in our society. This is a good read that will promote solid self-examination in a fresh manner. I felt edified and challenged after I had read the book, and I recommend it as an individual reading as well as reading the book as a group.

Sometimes negative reviews urges me to buy a book as quickly as a positive one -- it depends on the reason why people hate the book. Given the previous passionately negative review, I know that this book must be good, and affirms the Christian position in opposition to liberal distortions. I am putting it in my shopping cart right away.

Fr. Feeney is Not the Heretic but The "Hoganites" are.

Ex Cathedra: There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved. (Pope Innocent III, the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)

Ex Cathedra: We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam)

A doctrine or dogma of the Church is a truth which has been revealed by God and must be believed by all Catholics.

When the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, or "from the Chair" he has invoked his highest teaching authority. An Ex Cathedra pronouncement is a dogma that is absolutely immutable and unquestionable.

Saint Benedict Center has been insisting since its foundation over fifty years ago that all the evils plaguing the world today are the result of a weakness within the Catholic Church. And that weakness is precisely that our pastors are no longer preaching the NECESSITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR SALVATION.

Please read The Devil's Final Battle:

We are living in the most sinful era in history, worse than the days of Noah.

No one on this earth is exempt from the Chastisement about to befall us if the Catholic Church does not obey the Fatima Message very soon.

This does effect YOU, your life, your family, your freedom and your salvation NOW!

"In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great Apostasy in the Church will begin at the top."

These are the very words of Cardinal Ciappi (personal Papal Theologian to Pope John Paul II). The result of "the great Apostasy" starting "at the top" is corruption of the clergy and the laity in doctrine, in morals and in liturgy.

Today, the Church is in great crisis. Its very leaders - priests, bishops, and even Cardinals - cause scandal within and without the Church; heretical statements are proclaimed and immorality practiced - such as HOMOSEXUALITY, pedophilia, abortion, contraceptives, and divorce, just to mention a few.

The fact that bad priests are a chastisement is testified to by St. John Eudes. We recall that he told us God will send bad priests when He is angry. God is very angry with His people because He is not only sending us bad priests, He also apparently sent us bad bishops and bad Cardinals too.

The Holy Father is telling us that one-third of the clergy (who are the stars of Heaven) have been dragged down by the devil and his co-workers - the Masons, communists, homosexual networks - and are now working for the devil himself; not for God, not for the Church of Christ, but for the devil.

Richard Hogan says that:"Father Feeney and his followers were not mistaken in upholding the principals that outside the Church there is no salvation." Then he condems Fr. Feeney for following The dogma saying that an individual can't interpret what the Church taught!!!! "This heresy taught that all those who are not full members of the Roman Catholic Church are condemned to hell." Such double talked!!! The Church refutes Hogan-
ExCathedra:"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved." (Pope Innocent III, the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

This seems totally clear, and it is but this is one of those statements which liberals try to "explain away" by arguing that it does not mean what it says. This HERETICAL approach usually goes like this: "Oh yes, there is no salvation outside of membership... but there are different forms of membership...implied, specific, induced, electromagnetic,honorary,retired, animal, vegetable, and mineral among hundereds of others." The liberal (Richard Hogan)holds that EVERYONE is a member "somehow" of the Church. Therefore, EVERYONE can (and does!) go to heaven. Isn't that Nice?

Rather than point out that the word "outside" as used above in an Ex Cathedra infallible statement could ONLY have meaning if it actually conveyed a meaning, let me take a slightly different approach.

The "Church of the Faithful" MUST mean a certain organization and institution and no other. The Church does a number of unique things. One is to offer Mass for the remission of sins;another is teach the Marian dogmas. If one give his "loyalty to any other organization, THEN one is not in the one Church of the Faithful.

The one true Church is that which is united by dogma and morality. There are not two "Catholic" positions on abortion, nor on the Real Presence, nor the Assumption. Nor are these dogmas "optional." So if part of the "church" (sic) holds other than the truth on these matters, then this part is not part of the true Church, and those who are members of this "part" are NOT members of the true Church.

To put is slightly differently, if the words "Church," "one," and "outside" means anything at all, then the statement MUST be understood as it reads--clear, distinct, and dogmatic. If these words are so open to interpretation that one can define "church" as including Protestants, Rabbinical Jews, Mohammedans, etc, then language has been destroyed and real communication is impossible. Yet this is exactly what happens if the clear teachings of the Church are denied. EVERY word thereby becomes open to "alternative" understandings.

If Joe Prot who denies the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother is "somehow" a real member of the "church" so that salvation is "possible" for him as he now believes, then the teachings of the "church" are on both sides of this (and every other) issue.

Jesus told us that a kindgom divided against itself can not stand. To us faithful the Blessed Sacrament is Jesus. To the others it is a piece of bread. This DIVIDES us; therefore, both sides can NOT be within the same kingdom of Christ. This principle is true with regard to EVERY dogma.

Therefore, if the above statement does not mean exactly, precisely, clearly what it "says," then there is no "Church of the Faithful."

Lumen Gentium#16. "But in their sincere search of the truth of God they 'are ordained to' or 'ordered to' Christ and to its Body, the Church. They are found however in a deficit situation,..."

Please note that the Pope is not saying that these non-Christians are "related to" the Church, but are in fact "ordained to" and still in a "deficit situation" as regards their eternal salvation. By saying thus, the Pope refute's the translation placed on the Encyclical Mystici Corporis by the 1949 Protocol Letter of the Holy Office, which Letter uses the erroneous translation of "related to" instead of the correct "ordained towards". ...
Father Feeney and the Truth About Salvation, Chapter 9, wherein the Holy Office letter and the Encyclical Mystici Corporis are discussed.]

The reader must keep in mind that "Our Sunday Visitor" is a LIBERAL publication and they quote the so-called new catechism of the catholic church.

"The three Ex Cathedra definitions by three different popes are objective truths applicable for all time, and not subject to interpretations which contradict the obvious, literal meaning intended by the popes who defined them, nor subject to the vicissitudes of history or cultures."

"Any contrary opinions which have been expressed by popes who were not defining, or by the private speculations of saints or theologians, ought to be rendered null and void by the three solemn definitions of the popes on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and by the Decrees of the Council of Trent."

Fr. Feeney can't be accused of heresy because "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" is what the Church has always taught.

Fr. Feeney was and remain until his death a faithful Catholic and that in essence it was the political correct thing to Slander his good name.

Fr. Feeney was never tried by any Church Tribunal on his procedure, doctrines, or any of the other things that are associated with his name. Neither Fr. Feeney nor the Cardinal was ever tried on the issue of heresy. It was Fr. Feeney who accused them of heresy NOT the other way around. Fr. Feeney was NEVER publicly accused of anything except disobeying the order of going to Holy Cross. His actions was justified on two basis: 1)the compulsion of conscience 2)The Cardinal was wrong and Fr. Feeney was FACTUALLY RIGHT.

A very thorough book on the many heresies that have been produced in the last 2000 years of Christianity. Detailed and informative enough to give you a good perspective on what was happening but not so "heady" that normal people can't understand it. The end of each chapter has a brief summary of the heresy and what it consisted of which is a really nice way to wrap it up.

I picked this book up in order to quickly get a better understanding of Mormon history. The Bushmans rapidly cover LDS history, but I was not satisfied with the depth of the material. The book is pretty much a straight narrative with little attempt at interpretation or critical evaluation. Of course, the book IS part of a series of religious history surveys for the general reader, so it is not too surprising that the Bushmans do not go very deep. Nonetheless, at only 103 pages, they could have offered a little bit more meat to their treatment of LDS history. The first half of the book dealing with early Mormon history is the best, but far too uncritical. (What ever happened to those golden plates revealed to Joseph Smith?) The second half of the book starts to read like a tract put out by the Church. It has an almost apologetic tone. When a controversial issue is broached, like Mormon teaching about African Americans, the authors handle it very delicately. Since the authors are both historians at Columbia, I expected better. It almost seems that the book was slapped together, especially at the end where the Bushmans jump from topic to topic. Having said all of that, I did learn some things from this volume, but there has got to be a better introduction to Mormon history out there. For those interested in a more critical look at one event in Mormon history, check out "Blood of the Prophets" by Will Bagley.

The authors did a reasonable job, the book is organized and readable, they just shouldn't have presented their expository as an objective history. It is simply an LDS primer with historical context. This book is not balanced and objective. While it does point out the controversies surrounding the religion, it tends to slide right on by rather than really address those issues. The preface actually points out the real purpose of the book, "The aim of this book is to explain how Mormons feel about their religion and how they hold on to their faith in the modern era." With that the real purpose, the subtitle, "A History..." should have been left off.

The authors' approach was stated to be to "understand Mormonism in terms of the experience of Mormon people". They presented the sometimes-stormy history of Mormonism, often in the midst of controversy, in a straighforward and non-judgmental way.

There has been some dispute as to whether Mormons are Christians. Critics say that the LDS doctrine of God does not conform to traditional Christian creed. Joseph Smith said he communicated directly with God; this is unlike reformers such as Calvin and Luther who used reason to interpret the Bible in new ways.

The authors presented a thorough background of Joseph Smith, from his fist vision at age 14 and his translation of the gold tablets into the Book of Molrmon. They then followed the Mormons as they headed West and founded settlements in Missouri, Ohio, and Illinois, among other places, on their way to Utah.

Plural marriage and its repercussions were thoroughly explained. By 1844, this and other pronouncements by Joseph Smith carried Mormonism beyond the bounds of conventional Christian belief. Smith was jailed after ordering the press of a dissenting newspaper in Nauvoo, Illinois destroyed and he was then killed by an angry mob while he was in jail.

By September 1846 14,000 "Saints" had fled west from Nauvoo and undertook a brutal trek toward the Rocky Mountains. Over the next 22 years, 300 wagon trains with over 10,000 wagons would travel to Utah. In Utah, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith's successor, designed the Salt Lake Valley according to Smith's plan for New Jerusalem.

In 1896, Wilford Woodruff, the LDS President, declared an end to polygamy, the price paid for Utah to become a state. This practice had raised national opposition to Mormonism.

Mormonism became more mainstream, no longer practiced in isolation. The Church Welfare Plan, which continues today, seems to be a model to promote self-sufficiency and co-operation.

The last section of the book dealt with Mormonism today: the church structure (local and national), tithing, missions, and religious education.

This book is excellent historical information that places each pope into the historical context of the secular world. It gives the reader a general sense of each popes accomplishments and try's to infer each popes personality traits based on those accomplishments. I did find it lacking in things more spiritual and humane. The book leaves me wondering what sacrifices did these men make. How much did they truly suffer for their faith. In many cases Popes are made out to look like power hungry spiteful old men whose whole pontificate was spent making life miserable for everyone else. While this might be true of many popes I am convinced we don't get the whole story. Only the more sensational and controversial elements that sell books. It was overall a very enjoyable book. Well worth reading for those interested in Papel history, but take it with a grain of salt and realize that there might be more to the story than meets the reader.

This is a great book if you're curious about the basics of the life of a particular pontiff, or about papal statistics (i.e., shortest reign, longest reign, dates of reigns, etc.). It is not a history, and does not advertise to be one. It is a reference book from which history can be extracted (there are sections on papal history and the book is divided up into sections or epochs). You can literally pull up the name of a pope and get a glimpse of what his rule was like, as well as the highlights and relevant dates for each pope.

This book was perfect for me, coming from a non-catholic background. Since it does not read like a book laden with catholicism, I wasn't turned away by the language or structure of the book. Not once did I feel the author was trying to proselytize me (something sadly lacking in some other books about the catholic church). What I found was an honest, objective look at the papacy: there have clearly been good and bad popes (some, though very few, have been downright loathsome people), and there have been popes who were incredible men. This book is honest in its appraisal of the men who held the highest earthly order of the catholic church.

There is a slant, and the author hits you in the face with it, but not until the very end of the book. It is not laced throughout the text. Depending upon your perspective, it will either horribly offend you or surprise you with its candor. I personally found it refreshing.

In short, if you're curious about the papacy from a historical perspective, this is a good place to start.

Apparently the author is a dissenter in the catholic church, unbeknowngst to me. I picked this up in Italy to read about all the popes(most of which I knew nothing about). This book, with its short synopsis on each pope is a great read. It also illustrates the marvelous variety of personalities that inherited the throne of peter. From the smiling Pope John Paul I to the warrior pope Julious II. It details the roman persecutions and shows how few popes were killed in the period, details the schisms and also the sexual adventures of the popes. Shows how many popes were murdered, and how many had short periods in power. It also details the papal election process and its developments. A must read for those interested in a history of the Popes without the usual tenderness associated with some publications and the usual wordiness of academics.

If your real interest is in the true origins of Freemasonry, this isn't the book for you.

Instead, I recommend that you read 'The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century, 1590-1710', by David Stevenson.

Stevenson's book is the only work on the origins of Freemasonry I have ever seen that ignores the movement's vast myth-making literature (which includes everything Albert Pike wrote) and focuses instead on the surviving records of the earliest known masonic lodges. Stevenson--who teaches history at the University of St. Andrews--paints a solid, sober, believable portrait of Freemasonry's rather prosaic origins in the operative masonic lodges of early 17th-century Scotland.

His study is a welcome and refreshing antidote to all the junk that has been written about Freemasonry in the past three centuries. It explodes Masonic authors' extravagant claims for an origin in ancient civilizations and possession of power supernatural secrets. It also undermines anti-Masonic authors' equally bizarre accusations of pacts with supernatural forces of evil. It replaces these fanciful images with the story of a remarkable human institution whose recent, humble, workaday origins are far more interesting than its myths.

If you only read one book about Freemasonry in your lifetime, that book should be David Stevenson's 'The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century, 1590-1710'.

While the premise of this book is laudable, and Rev. Carlson deserves every slap on the hand he gets for his many prevarications in the name of God, Mr. Thorn's book is nearly identical to an earlier book by A. DeHoyos, "The Cloud of Prejudice." Interested parties should get both books and judge for themselves whether Mr. Thorn has acted questionably.

Richard Thorn's book presents what amounts to the party line from Masonry. He was both diplomatic and polite to the religious right - something worthy of praise.

It is sad that, in the name of their G_d, the religious right can 'bear false witness against their neighbor.' Fortunately the secular society in which we live - there being a wall of seperation between church and state - allows BOTH thinking and believing to exist in the same communities.