I Emailed Anne Rice

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i emailed Mrs. Rice about her book:
Dear Mrs. Rice,

I am reading your book Christ teh Lord of of Egypt and I think its great that as a Catholic you are writing a book about Jesus Christ. I just had some questions about your book. I was wondering In the first Chapter of the Book, Christ kills a young boy. Christ is said to have been sinless and to kill someone is most defiently a sin. Also this story of Christ killing a child comes directly from the gnostic gospel of Thomas, a gospel which is not accepted by the Catholic church. Also while reading the first chapter I noticed that Christ seems to be ignorant of his mission to save humanity, and the fact that He is God. This explicitly denies Catholic Teaching that christ always knew who he was and what his mission was even before he was born a human. I was wondering if you could please email me back and explain your book to me.

Sincerly,

Sam

heres what i got back:




The boy isn't really dead. Murder is a sin, not killing. Jesus could know at any second who he is and why he's here, but he's chosen to "empty" himself of the knowledge for our sake, to be involved with experience in this world. That's how I interpret scripture...ie. the incident in Mark where he feels the power go out of him when the hemorrhaging woman touches his hem, and he turns and says, "Who touched me?" He knew everything but not at every moment. -- The Infancy gospel of Thomas is not gnostic at all. It's part of early legends about Christ's childhood and those stories were popular for fifteen hundred years. The Gospel of Thomas a Take care and thanks for writing, Anne Rice.



I think its great what she is doing. but i still have questions about Christ. Did he truly empty himself or was he all knowing?

sam

[Specter]

[quote]The Gospel of Thomas a Take care and thanks for writing[/quote]

this part looks hacked up. As far as her answer, though.

[quote]he turns and says, "Who touched me?"[/quote]

That doesn't mean that He did not know. He just wanted the woman to reveal who she was to Him, without frightening the poor woman.

[Socrates]

I really don't know much about the details of this book, but even if Mrs. Rice's intentions are good, I find the whole idea of writing a novel about the inner life of Jesus Christ quite presumptuous to say the least.
I don't know why so many authors (of various religious beliefs or lack thereof) seem to feel compelled to write such pieces.
In my opinion, the four Gospels are enough. Anything else added is simply the author's imagination, and has little interest to me. Any such novels reveal much more about the author than they do about Christ.

Edited November 11, 2005 by Socrates

[Thy Geekdom Come]

As I understand, Christ did not know everything, in as much as His historical human mind did not know, say, that cars would one day exist. However, that in emptying Himself, He allowed His knowledge to come through human education and through the inspirations given through the Holy Spirit. This is how I've heard it explained that He didn't know the hour of His return, and that only the Father did, because in becoming human, His divine Person still had access to this knowledge, but He chose not to allow His human mind to know it.

However, that's only as I've had it explained to me and I'd love a Church Scholar to expound on this.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Nov 10 2005, 08:29 PM']As I understand, Christ did not know everything, in as much as His historical human mind did not know, say, that cars would one day exist.  However, that in emptying Himself, He allowed His knowledge to come through human education and through the inspirations given through the Holy Spirit.  This is how I've heard it explained that He didn't know the hour of His return, and that only the Father did, because in becoming human, His divine Person still had access to this knowledge, but He chose not to allow His human mind to know it.

However, that's only as I've had it explained to me and I'd love a Church Scholar to expound on this.
[right][snapback]785261[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

thanks for the explanation raphael. yes i also would like someone with a theology degree to discuss this.

sam

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 10 2005, 09:12 PM']In my opinion, the four Gospels are enough.  Anything else added is simply the author's imagination, and has little interest to me.  Any such novels reveal much more about the author than they do about Christ.
[right][snapback]785239[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes they do. And in this case it reveals a woman who has reverted to the Catholic Church and is completely faithful to the Magisterium. She read all the first century Church Fathers, and attempts to set the story of Jesus in an authentic first century setting. She poo-poos the extreme higher-form critics and accepts the teachings of the Church as her starting point. Its an interesting read.
She is a talented writer and is using her talents in a way to serve God.

[cmotherofpirl]

As God Jesus was there at the Creation, as a human child he still has to learn to use the carpentry tools to help his dad. Jesus is always divine, the God-man, but the human side did not have total access to the knowledge of the divinity.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 10 2005, 09:37 PM']Yes they do. And in this case it reveals a woman who has reverted to the Catholic Church and is completely faithful to the Magisterium. She read all the first century Church Fathers, and attempts to set the story of Jesus in an authentic first century setting. She poo-poos the extreme higher-form critics and accepts the teachings of the Church as her starting point. Its an interesting read.
She is a talented writer and is using her talents in a way to serve God.
[right][snapback]785273[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm not certain that I'd give her that evaluation yet. I hope that it's true, but while the Gospel of Thomas is used for some historical facts, it does have a gnostic flavor to it and is not considered inspired, most likely in part due to the section about Jesus killing a little boy.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

what i don't understand is why jesus would kill someone. whats the differnece between murder and killing, and does it mattter that He brought him back? i mean chirst (in this story) killed him out of anger. its so un-christ like.

[Socrates]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 10 2005, 08:37 PM']Yes they do. And in this case it reveals a woman who has reverted to the Catholic Church and is completely faithful to the Magisterium. She read all the first century Church Fathers, and attempts to set the story of Jesus in an authentic first century setting. She poo-poos the extreme higher-form critics and accepts the teachings of the Church as her starting point. Its an interesting read.
She is a talented writer and is using her talents in a way to serve God.
[right][snapback]785273[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Even if the author is the most orthodox Church scholar in the world, i tend to personally find the idea of such an undertaking presumptuous, especially if it deals with the inners thoughts and feelings of Jesus Christ. (This is an opinon here, not a personal denunciation).

I know this is one thing as an author I would never touch. I prefer to let the Gospels speak for themselves. Any human attempt to "interpret" Christ will by necessity bring Him down to a lower level than the mystery of His Divine nature. No one can presume to know the inner thoughts of God, so why put words in His mouth (or thoughts in His head)?

Edited November 11, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Nov 10 2005, 08:53 PM']what i don't understand is why jesus would kill someone. whats the differnece between murder and killing, and does it mattter that He brought him back? i mean chirst (in this story) killed him out of anger. its so un-christ like.
[right][snapback]785294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It's nothing but a silly story.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

but it explores issues about christianity, and the Gospel of Thomas, the nature of Christ. and plus im kind of obsessing about it so i must know.

sam

[Era Might]

I haven't read the book, but I don't share necessarily share Socrate's aversion. Frank Sheed's "To Know Christ Jesus" is an example of a "deeper" look at the life of Christ than the Gospels give us. Granted, it's not literary fiction, but it tries to imagine the Lord in context. Another example would be Venerable Anne Cathere Emmerich's "Dolorous Passion".

What else is meditation but seeking to pick up where the Gospels left off?

Edited November 11, 2005 by Era Might

[Myles Domini]

Dear Sam

I wouldn't loose sleep over Ms Rice's novel or the gospel of Thomas' contents. Legends about Jesus are just that: legends. Inspite of the skeletons of truth that may be contained in the non-canonical texts like the protoevangelium of James or the genuine acts of Sts Peter and Paul (both of which are, to my eyes, more plausible than the gospel of Thomas) they have no flesh. If they had the Holy Spirit would've had them included in the final canon of Sacred Scripture. Not to say that they're always sinister the protoevangelium of James, for instance, contains many interesting stories about Our Lady in her youth. The fact of the matter though is that these tales are not divinely inspired nor are they neccessary to believe for salvation.

If you want to know about the nature of Christ stories from Gnostic texts are not the best place to go Sam. Rather, seek I'd start here: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4.htm"]Summa Theologica Tertia Pars[/url].

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

thanks myles.