Prophet, Priest and King; Lord, God and Friend, This is My Jesus!

Prophet, Priest and King;

Lord, God and Friend, This is My Jesus!

I believe my Jesus would have physically looked like this: a strong, tall, powerful man, who exuded a very large presence. He would have had big rough hands from years in his dad's carpentry shop. Jesus was of Jewish and Middle Eastern origins, and he would most likely have had dark olive skin and long, dark, curly hair. His eyes would have been his most unique features; deep-set, large, and dark. They would look as though they could penetrate you, but without judgement. You would feel as if you could get lost in them, and they would be softened by the joy in seeing people come to a better understanding of His Father, God. However, there would also be a deep pain in His eyes for the lost, and those who just did not understand all He has in store for them. Laugh lines would have surrounded His eyes, being to me, a man who would have laughed a lot.

Now, what was the business of Jesus? What did He do on a day to day basis? I believe that his primary business would have been of people. He cared for people first and foremost, above rules and regulations, customs and traditions. He would have been considered by some a sage or wise man, by some a heretic, or worse a lunatic. He would have been a preacher, a teacher, and a healer of body, mind, soul, and spirit. He would have been very friendly and someone people would have wanted to spend time around; an outgoing person. He would have been gentle most of the time, but capable of fierce anger you would not want to be on the receiving end of. He would have always spoken with serious undertones.

His followers were probably a very eclectic mob; from priests to prostitutes, fishermen to farmers, and tax collectors to Taylor's. Everybody who heard about him would have been interested in Him; some for honest interest's sake, some for political plotting, and some in fear of the rocking the status quo.

Looking at Jesus theologically, I believe this: Jesus is the Word made flesh. He is both fully God and fully man. He is also prophet, priest and king. He is my Lord and my Saviour. He was born of a virgin, being conceived by the Holy Spirit. He was crucified, He died, and He was buried, but He has risen from the dead and did appear to over five hundred people at the time of the resurrection. He then ascended into heaven, and sat, and will forevermore sit at God's right hand. He is preparing a place in heaven for others and myself, but will come again to judge humankind. He is the alpha and the omega, the first and the last. He is the fulfilment of Hebrew Scriptures looking forward to the messiah; the anointed one, though he came as a suffering Christ and not the warrior. The day of the warrior will come, though.

On a personal level, I see Christ Jesus as my King, my Lord, and my friend. I believe that he cares for me, and is intimately involved in every area of my life. He provides guidance and leads me in following His will for my life. He has a plan for my life, and works at guiding and leading me to that plan. He wants to use me in this world, and is strengthening me day by day so that I may follow that will.

From this description, you might say, and I do say, that I possess a very conservative view of Jesus. I could almost go so far as to say that I keep a pre-modernist view of Jesus. I am not ashamed of this fact. I have a profound love and respect for Jesus and have a personal relationship with Him. I have a faith relationship with Jesus, and belong to a community of believers. That is part of a greater community that is "the body of Christ".

There are others who would agree with some of my view of Christ, some who would agree with most or all of my views, and others who would think I am a flake or a heretic. What they think about my views, and of me, is of little concern to me, for the most part.

A number of factors and combinations of factors have shaped my view of Jesus. To some extent my image of Jesus was formed through my education in the Catholic School system. The Nuns and Priests that witnessed of Christ's love and power, were 'Christ with flesh on' to me during my formative years. There have also been fellow followers of Christ Jesus that have shown me unconditional love and support, and who have upheld me. These people have been spiritual parents, friends, and family, and closer than blood can ever be. People who have discipled me, nourished me, challenged me, rebuked me, and corrected me; always with the goal of building me up in Jesus.

My objective in taking this course is to have fun, to learn, and to study Jesus from an academic perspective. It is also to have the opportunity to study at Tom's feet again and have him open up my eyes and broaden my perspective. I also hope to be challenged and strengthened through this course.

In conclusion I could like to state that the words of the Sunday school hymn sums up my relationship with Jesus. Imagine if you can this next paragraph being drawn in large print crayola crayon:

"Jesus loves me,
This I Know,
For The Bible tells me so
Little ones to him belong
They are weak, but he is strong.
…"

The following is a painting I did of the trinity.


(First Written for RS206 Jesus Life and Legacy Spring 2000.)
You can see more of my artwork here.

Mad Celtic Warrior, Poet and Priest! - An Essay.

Mad Celtic Warrior, Poet and Priest!

What is my ontological self-understanding, what is my religious background, and why am I taking this course; are all very interesting questions. I will begin with the first and work my way through some of the others. The first is a question I am constantly asking myself, and journaling on, or mulling over in my ruminations. The best answer I have come up with is a poem I wrote a few years ago, here at school, a poem of ontological musings:

Poetry In Being
i am holding on
Sometimes by the thinnest thread
Sometimes upheld in prayers and love

i am loved
and trying to accept that love
And to love in return

i am a child of God's
precious, dearly loved,
but always challenged to climb above

i am a man
once a boy, with dreams aplenty
now learning to dream again

i am a celt
with a warrior's passion, a poet's heart
wisdom, knowledge and discernment do I seek, to temper them

i am a soldier
called to serve the King of Kings
called to fight upon my knees

i am creative
with the Spirit of God within me
a poet's pen, an artists brush and the cooks pots

i am a dreamer
and the dream,
hope, pray, care, plan, love

i am who i am
i am who God is shaping me to be
clay to the potter, i surrender all to thee

i am the words
that i speak, and the silences that i keep
of praise and prayers, anguish and tears

i am

Steven R. McEvoy Mar. 1999

With that poem as the starting point, I can now endeavour to amplify that answer and some of the other questions asked. Who am I? I see myself in many different lights. Most often though as a quester, a religious quester who is searching for his role and place in the universe. I have studied and even practiced many different religions before returning to the Christianity of my youth. Donald Nicholl in the essay Scientia Cordis states: "Certainly a striking feature of many of the great spiritual adventurers of this century has been the way in which, having lost their bearings within their own traditions, they have sought them in some other - and have almost gone over to that tradition, only to discover their bearings once more within their own." Though I do not consider myself a great spiritual adventurer, I do see myself on a lifelong journey of seeking knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. I have lived in many other traditions but always felt pulled back to Christianity.

I am 33 years old, and have been a part-time student at the University of Waterloo, for the past 17 terms. I am a Caucasian male who works fulltime and attends school part time with the hopes and dreams of one day being either a pastor or a professor. School for me is both a means and an end. It is the journey and the destination. I can not imagine my life without some form of academic pursuit, some quest for knowledge, and understanding.

I was raised in a mixed religious home. My father is now nominally Roman Catholic, though in my youth he was very active in the Church and the Knights of Columbus. Also I was raised through the Catholic school system and the sacraments. My Mother is a practicing pagan and has many strange ideas about religion.The hardest thing I have had to overcome is the dual-form Learning disability of Dyslexia. It has caused me to see the world through different eyes. I did not learn to read until later in life, I discovered a world I previously never knew existed. I was addicted to words, and their power, their story and their enchantment. I am of Celtic origins, and resonate with Celtic spirituality. Since becoming a practicing Christian of my own volition late in high-school, I have held membership in the Roman Catholic Church, The Presbyterian Church of Canada, The Mennonite Brethren, Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, and have even attended a Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada church for nearly a year. Robert A. Heinlein in The Notebooks of Lazarus Long once stated "One Man's Theology is another Man's Belly Laugh" I have been both laughed at, and occasionally the one laughing.I now struggle to develop balance, between "Body - Mind - Spirit"; to work to become whole. So my objective in taking this course is to have fun, to learn, and to study the history of "Christian Thought" from an academic perspective. It is also an opportunity to open up my eyes and broaden my perspective. I also hope to be challenged and strengthened through this course.

I hope that from this course, I will come to understand in greater depth my religious tradition. Peter Frick in a course a few years ago said, school should teach us to ask the right questions, not know all the answers. I hope in studying the questions of the past, to understand the struggles of the church today, and even my own personal struggles. I hope that I will have a broader understanding of the Christian tradition and how to personally interact with it. Thus I believe this course with aide me in my endeavour to be a religious quester, in my quest for knowledge, understanding and wisdom.

Footnotes:

1. Scientia Cordis in The Beatitudes of Truth: Darton, Longman & Todd, New York 1998, p.150
2. Notebooks of Lazarus Long; Heinlein, Robert A, New York, 1978, Putnam, p.? (I do not have the page number I memorized this quote a long time ago and the book is now out of print)

(First Written for RS231 History of Christian Thought Fall term 2003)
You can see more of my poetry here.)

Other Articles Examining Who I Am:
Mad Celtic Warrior, Poet and Priest! - An Essay - 2003
The Journey of a Quester! - An Essay / Spiritual Biography 2004
New Year's 2006
Who Am I? Who Am I? -2008
Confessions of a Bibliophile #5 - How I Became a Bibliophile, From Dyslexic to Addict - 2009
New Year's Goals 2010
Steven R. McEvoy Interview - 2012
2014 My Goals
Who I Am - 2014

Feast of Saint Joseph 2018
I have greatly sinned 

Steven R. McEvoy Q & A IT Employee Spotlight

...

Which One First?

Which One First?

A study in textual comparison in the New Testament,
Between Matthew 12:22-32, Mark 3:20-30 and Luke 11:14-23.

In this exercise I will be attempting to do a contextual comparison between three texts, Matthew 12:22-32, Mark 3:20-30 and Luke 11:14-23. Due to the restriction on outside sources, this paper will be mostly opinion, but hopefully informed opinion. The exercise provides challenges in that the limitation on the size of Biblical text used as well as the limited length of the assignment. However I will attempt to do it some justice to both.

First I must state that I am going to refer to the Authors of these texts as Matthew, Mark and Luke. Knowing that this is just a reference point from convenience and not that they were actually written by them, for that is a fact we can not know at this point in time.

I will begin with a comparison of the three biblical texts, where they are exactly alike, where they differ and gaps between the three accounts, this will be done in a chart form. Then I will attempt to explain possibly some of the reasons for some of the differences. And then conclude with what we can gleam of Jesus and 'what he was about' in the concluding section.

Lets build a chart now of where these texts meet and diverge from each other:

As can be seen from the chart, the basic text is the same story, which boils down to: "Jesus is teaching or healing. He gets accused of casting out demons by the power of evil, He teaches on a divided house falling. Then the story of a strong man. Then either or a statement on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, either you are for me or against me." The key area's where they differ is in how do we get to this place? In Matthew Jesus is healing a blind mute demonic. In Mark his family is coming to him trying to pull him off the teaching, for fear he had gone out of his mind. And In Luke he cast a demon out of a mute.

The next major difference is the discrepancy listed above, the greatest divergence here is the Luke 11:16, the crowds demanding a sign. Then In Matthew 12:25 and Luke 11:17 it states He (Jesus) knew what they were thinking and said …(the rest of the passage). But at this point Mark 2:23 diverges and states that he (Jesus) called then to him and spoke in parables.

Then the third area of difference is that both Matthew 12:27, 28 and Luke 11:19,20 both return to the reference to Beelzebul. Which does not happen in the Mark account.

Next all 3 accounts have reference to a strong man. Matthew and Mark are very similar in their account of this story, almost word for word. But here Luke has a very different version of the story, in Luke's telling, there is reference to arms, and guards, and a stronger man who attacks overpowers and takes away the defenses the strong man had trusted in.

Then when we get to the endings they overlap to some extent but each has variations from the others. Then we get a section that appears towards the end of Matthews account 12:30 and at the end of Luke's 11:23 which are the identical verse in both accounts. But there is no mention of this in Mark either in word, concept, or implication. Then the end of Matthews account v21-23 is very similar in meaning but different in wording to Mark's v28-29. Then Mark v30 ends with a reference to an 'unclean spirit' which we see in neither of the other Gospels.

When one comes to trying to explain these differences there are many theories and possibilities. First I will list all possible sources then try to chart some of the possible ways these gospels have come to built the way they are.

1. Q. = Quelle or source of Quotes
2. S. = Stories of collection of Jesus Parables and Teaching lessons
3. P. = Paul's Letters
4. Mk. = Mark
5. Mw. = Matthew
6. L = Luke
7. J. = John
8. O. = Oral tradition(s)
9. H. = Holy Spirit

Now two of these sources are tricky and one is of my own process. The S. source is one that I have always wondered about. They may have been a Q. source that was a list of quotes of sayings. Yet I think it equally possible that among Jesus many followers they may have been someone or many people who kept records of his parables and other teaching stories an these I have given the title S. source for "Stories."

The other one is the O. or oral tradition(s) I believe that there may have been many oral traditions circulating around. From each different traveling teacher like Paul or Peter and the churches they founded. Much like the Irish legends that I have heard from my father then read variations on a theme in many versions of the same story. Much like our beloved 'Cinderella' story or the 'Ashiepattle' Version of it we find in Grimm's collection, there are variations of this story on almost every contentment and in each region. So too variations on the Jesus stories or teachings could have arisen in different communities long before they were put to parchment.

Finally the H. source from John 14:26 NASB "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." As a believer this verse always leads me to the possibility that other than Oral Traditions there were no sources other than the Holy Spirit. But academically I have to stay open to the possibility of all that is listed above.
So now I will chart these by the book to list some possible forms there shaping could have gone through, From the most academic to the most religious.

As can be seen from this chart when we factor in the theological possibilities, the academic possibilities and theories, and also the religious concerns there are many possible ways each of our texts came into existence.

Thus as we go to the assignment of explaining the difference in the 3 texts that we are examining. I personally believe that Mark was the first gospel that was written (from the 3 we are examining). I think that Mark would have drawn upon Oral Tradition(s), and possibly the Q. and S. sources, I also believe that at each stage of the process from Oral to Q. and S and Mk the Holy Spirit was guiding the process. It is also possible that Mark drew upon Paul's letters.

Thus from Mark we move onto Matthew, I think Matthew was written based upon all the same sources as Mark and that he probably drew upon Mark as well. And Finally Luke, I believe that Luke like Matthew drew upon Q. S. and also Mk. All guided by H. there is also the possibility that Luke drew upon Matthew.

From the above chart and explanations it is very easy to explain some of the similarities and some of the differences. It is entirely possible that if Mark is written first and Matthew draws upon Mark and Luke draws upon both of them. Then weather we have earlier sources or not we can explain Mw and L's overlap with Mk. If we include the Q. source that Matthew and Luke draw upon but Mark does not, it accounts for the exact wordings being in some spots in both Mw and L.

Thus we account for the identical verses in Mark 3:27 with Matthew 12:29 by the fact that Matthew drew upon Mark. Also if Luke drew upon the Matthew source or both Matthew and Luke drew upon a Q. source we can account for the save verse word for word in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23. Which could account for this verse not in word or concept being in this story in Mark.

Another example going in divergence of text could be the reference to Beelzebul in Matthew 12:24b, Mark 3:22b and Luke 11:15b each of these versus states the same thing but in different ways. That could have easily been just an authors preference or use of language differences among the authors. So from the variations of ways the Books we know as Matthew, Mark and Luke came into existence we can account for all of the similarities and difference by one theory or another.

One other possibility I would like to address is that if from the evidence we have Jesus was often at odds with the authorities weather we mean scribes, priests, Pharisees; then we could also account for difference in that this scenario was played out more than once during Jesus ministry. That being his accused of being associated with Beezebul. Thus these could actually be 3 retellings of 3 different events, not of the same event. This could also account for the differences.

What do we learn about Jesus and what is he about? That is what we will attempt to examine in this finale section. First I would state that Jesus was man of power and controversy. He could heal diseases, and cast out demons. The incredible things he did are not debated by his opponents in all three texts. What they do question is how he does it. From this small sampling I would say that Jesus was very passionate about what he did, that he saw himself as an instrument of God. And that He was bringing the kingdom of God to man on earth.

I would say that based on his healing and caring for others that he was a very compassionate person. But he is also a man of great intellect and wisdom. The parables , stories and analogies he comes up with are just as relevant and applicable to us today as they would have been to his original audiences nearly 2000 years ago.
I can under stand the leaders reactions. Here is a man with great power and abilities the likes of which they have not seen before and he is upsetting the peace. People are following him and not sticking to the ritual and tradition , they fear their own position and also upsetting the Roman government. I do not under stand his family's reaction. I can thus offer no explanation for it. As to the crowds I can see their enthusiasm at some one who has this power, who heals , cleans and releases from bondage any who are brought to him. Who would not follow such a one that they saw in person.

That we have a complicated task, to keep at bay the religious fever and also not become so academically focused that we loose the experience of being touched by Jesus even across the years and miles. For the freedom he provided then is just as available to us. So that will be my aim through the rest of this course, finding a balanced view and approach to 'This Jesus', both academically, and through the eyes of my faith.

(First Written for RS206 Jesus Life and Legacy Spring 2000.)

Theology: The What and How's - An Essay

Theology: The What and How's

The question of what is theology is one what has plagued the christian church, almost since it's beginning's. In this paper I will outline a few views of what theology is. I will then give my view about what theology is. I will then give my view about what theology is and also how to go about studying it.

There are probably as many definitions of what theology is as there are theologians. From Erickson's Christian Theology, "theology will also seek to understand God's creation, particularly man and his condition, and God's redemptive working in relation to man kind." This view is probably the closest to my own, but I will share some others that are also relevant and close to my views.

First I would like to look at Karl Rahner's definition, which is that of: "theology is the science of faith. It is the conscious and methodical explanation and explication of the divine revelation and grasped in faith." This is central to my view, theology is always in relation to faith. This is vitally important to my world view. I look at the world through theocentric lenses. God is central to my life and all I do. His word has central relevance in all that I do. Thus one has to be participating in the experience of religion in order to seriously study theology. It can not just be head knowledge but must also be applicable or heart knowledge, in our daily lives.

This view is also echoed by John MacQuarrie's definition; "theology may be defined as the study which, through participation in and reflection upon a religious faith, seeks to express the content of this faith in the clearest and most coherent language available".

As we can see from this sampling theology is the science of God. The Word itself comes from the Greek "theos" and "logos", the study of God, literally. It is study of what we can know and what we can not about God. Thus we return to Erickson, he lists 5 things that modern theology is, or should be:

1. Theology is biblical
2. Theology is systematic
3. is also related to the issues of general culture and learning
4. must be contemporary
5. is to be practical

These 5 points will outline and guide how we do theology. Which is what we will now do in the next section.

The approaches to theology vary as much as do the definitions of what it is. Yet I believe that a many fold approach is needed to have a well rounded and well grounded theology. There have been many different phases of theology and many fads as well.

The first 2 of Erickson's points for me are intertwined, and interdependent. Systematic Theology according to Websters is; "a branch of theology concerned with summarizing the doctrinal traditions of a religion especially with a view to relating the traditions convincingly to the religion's present day setting", biblical theology on the other hand is theology concerned with the theology of the new and old testaments. The bible is our first source. Our primary source. Or our beginning and end of all theological debates. Theology must also be of social relevance. It must be applicable to all area's of our life.

Thus it has to be relevant to our culture, it must have relations to other area's of learning. It has to be approachable by anyone interested in the pursuit of truth or knowledge. It must be contemporary so that it can relate to the cultural setting that it is in. but in being so it must not loose it's focus on Christ, God, Redemption.

Theology must also be practical, "Practical Theology is the study of the institutional activities of religion (as preaching, church administration, pastoral care , and liturgy ...). To me this is the ultimate end of all theology. It is where the knowledge gained in study, gets put into practice. Where we apply what we learn.

The questions of what and how about theology, will never be answer to full agreement here on earth. But we must each work out what our views on these are. To summarize then Theology is the study of God's relations and interactions with man. We go about this in a lot of ways, but we must combine them to have a complete and useful approach.

End Notes

1 Christian Theology p.21
2 Christian Theology an Introduction p. 143
3 Christian Theology an introduction p. 142
4 Christian Theology an introduction p. 141
5 Christian Theology p. 21
6 Websters On Line Dictionary

References

McGrath, Alister E.
Christian Theology an Introduction
Oxford: Blackwell, 1997

Erickson, Millard J.
Christian Theology
Grand Rapids: Baker House 1985

Websters On Line Dictionary
http://www.websters.dictionary.com

(First Written for RS100K Introduction to Theology Fall 1998.)

Kundun - A Film Criticism

Title: Kundun
Year: 1997
Director: Martin Scorsese
Writer: Melissa Mathison
Studio: De Fina-Cappa
Film Stock:
Color (Technicolor)
Run Time: 134 min.

The film Kunden presents an idealized vision of Tibetan Buddhism and in doing so it distorts that religion and romanticizes the country, the Dalai Lama and the religion. From the article by Eve Mullen we will examine their arguments for this view. Both of these authors are critical of the movie and the ways in which they present Tibetan Buddhism. European and now North American society have often had a fascination with the Orient and has a long and not so distinguished history. The East has been romanticized in fiction, art and popular culture going back a few centuries now. But when something gets placed upon a pedestal in such a fashion, either Orientalism or as it is sometimes referred to, Occidentalism, it leads to misunderstanding and misrepresentation, either through false aggrandizement or through racism and its errors.

Kundun presents the story of the current Dalai Lama's life and his exile from Tibet after Chinese occupation. However it does so through very rosy glasses especially for Scorsese whose works are usually so critical and cynical. Scorsese and his film are described by Mullen this way: "Scorsese's film is, uncharacteristically for Scorsese, respectful of the religious and political institutions it depicts." She then goes on to further describe this work and its director saying: "The most ironic and pessimistic of directors has succumbed to the fantasy of utopian Tibet and her perfect leader. He even depicts the rats in the Potala as cute, even though the Dalai Lama remembered them as frightening in his autobiography on which the original Kundun script was based." Mullen has described Orientalism as "Western distortions, purposeful or not, or Eastern traditions and culture, distortions which ultimately can be patronizing or damaging to the studied cultures." She goes on to state that this has been debunked for the most part in the field of religious studies, but especially for Tibet, it is reemerging in popular film, and culture. Such stars as Harrison Ford and Richard Gere are lending time, money and their 'talents' to the cause of Tibet. Both of these men are active politically and socially, lobbying for the rights of Tibet and the Tibetan people.

Tibet has indeed been romanticized by the West, and in doing so, what Tibet was, and what it is has been, is lost in the western presentation of what some like Scorsese, Ford and Gere would like it to be, and maybe even really believe it to be. Tibet is represented as a country and a people that need to be rescued, and we must do all we can to do so. The screen shot of the Dalai Lama praying a blessing over his country as he is escaping the Chinese is particularly poignant. He could almost be a Roman Priest praying over his people. That is not the Dalai Lama, though he returns shortly after this to playing with his telescope.

This film does present religious material, and is a representation of a religious leader's life, but it does so through such distorted lenses that it loses its credibility. Thus, the message to help Tibet becomes corrupted.

Endnotes:

1. Mullen, Eve L. Oriental Commercializations 1998 p.3
2. IBID p.4
3. IBID p.2
4. http://www.rushprnews.com
5. http://www.gerefoundation.org

Bibliography

Mullen, Eve L.
Oriental Commercializations:
Tibetan Buddhism in American Popular Film
Journal of Religion and Film Vol 2 No 2 Oct 1998

Lopez, Jr. Donald
New Age Orientalism: The Case of Tibet
Tricycle: The Buddhist Review Spring 1994

http://imdb.com/
http://www.gerefoundation.org/
http://www.rushprnews.com/

(First Written for RS266 Religion in Popular Film Fall 2007.)

What they want you to know! by: Carter Shepard and Carolyn Cummings

What they want you to know!
Messages from beyond the grave.
By Carter Shepard and Carolyn Cummings
Cumming Press
ISBN 9780976706311

As a writer who has published nearly 200 book reviews in the last 3 years, I now daily receive offers of books from authors who have found here on my blog or my reviews on Imprint's website or Amazon.com or Amazon.ca. I usually look at all the offers and decide if it is a book I would be interested in reading or not, based upon the information they have included in their letter. I must have missed something big in the offer from this book. You see my reviews are broken down roughly as 50% Fiction, 15% Catholic, 10% Fiction, 10% History, 5% Fitness and Health, 5% Biography and 5% Tech manuals. So why would anyone think I would want to read a book by a psychic about supposed conversations with the dead?

What I was expecting from the write-up for the book, was gleaned wisdom from history figures' lives and how to live a better life. What the book is, is 18 supposed interviews with the dead historical figures through a medium. The book does provide a short biography for each of those 'interviewed'. The list includes Albert Einstein, Nicole Simpson, Ronald Reagan, Leonardo Da Vinci, Johnny Cash, Princess Diana, John Kennedy Jr., Princess Grace, Benjamin Franklin, Christopher & Dana Reeve, Jackie Kennedy, William Shakespeare, Audrey Hepburn, Howard Hughes, Natalie Wood, Steve Irwin, Abraham Lincoln and John Scudder. An impressive list of historical figures to have drop into your parlor for a conversation.

Most of the participants seem anxious to share their views on life, love and living with the authors. It is interesting to note that if the book is correct and they did have conversations with the dead, modern English is what is spoken in the afterlife. The book is also full of photos spanning the interviewees' lives.

I am not sure what to make of the book. It was interesting and somewhat fun to read these supposed stories. But that is coming from a point of view that believes that interviews like these cannot have taken place. If offered as true experience, as I believe the book is intended, I feel it is misguided and dangerous if however it is intended as fun and humourous then it is well done and worth a read. So I will leave it to your personal beliefs and persuasions as to whether you pick up this book or not. But buyer be warned - it might not be exactly what you're expecting.

(Fist Published in Across the Creek 2008-04-01 in the Book Look column.)

The Legacy of Ogma by: E.A. Rappaport

The Legacy of Ogma
E.A. Rappaport
iUniverse
ISBN 9780595464043 (Paperback)
ISBN 97805957010919 (Cloth)
ISBN 9780595906987 (Ebook)

Halia, a beautiful young thief, finds a small crystal orb. This is the beginning of a grand adventure. While searching for the key to the sphere, she encounters Ahriman a sorcerer and Xarun a warrior, both of whom has his own sphere. The three set off on an adventure around the globe to find out the secrets of the orbs. This book has it all - wizards, thieves, warriors, battles between good and evil. It contains travel, or we should say journey or quest, and the great unknown.

This book has it all for a fantasy fan! There is epic scenery across the continent and under the sea. Add to that adventure, weapons, magic and battles. A reader could not ask for more in a book from this genre than we have in this volume.

Rappaport writes in a smooth and pleasing style. The reader gets drawn into the story and the world is so well-crafted it becomes believable. While reading this book you are transported into a world in your imagination and it is as if you are there participating in the events. Rappaport creates believable characters that stay true to themselves. Some new authors have characters who become wishy-washy or who seem to change personality part way through a book, sometimes even a number of times. Rappaport has not fallen into that error. He obviously spent a lot of time planning the characters and the plot to create this novel. He also does a great job at describing stunning scenery and believable fight scenes. His battles are neither too gory nor too glossed over. He writes with the balanced approach of a pro. The dialogue is great - neither stunted nor verbose. Rappaport has written an excellent book.

This book is the first in a series by E.A. Rappaport, and if the other two books in the weapons trilogy are as good as this one, fantasy fans are in for a treat, not only in this series but in future writings from Rappaport. If you are a fantasy fun give this new author a try.

(First published in Imprint 2008-03-28.)