Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 22:30:57 GMT -5
Some of the ideas of liberal progressive Christianity have been brought up here on threads such as the one about Exclusivity. This post will contain a letter written to Marcus Borg, a progressive Christian scholar, and the second post is his response. Coincidently, there are some similarities between how Borg views Jesus, and how some 2x2 critics describe the 2x2 view of Jesus. Keen theologians will find this interesting, agree with it or not. www.patheos.com/blogs/marcusborg/2014/06/a-letter-about-jesus/A Letter About Jesus
June 30, 2014 By Marcus Borg 161 CommentsA very few days ago, I received by e-mail a letter about Jesus from a person who is reading one of my books. His thoughts and questions struck me as being of interest to many people. I quote the letter at length and then share my response. The Letter Your book has persuaded me that much of the language of the Bible and theology is metaphorical and should not be taken literally. Granted that, at what point do you think one reaches a gray area as to whether Jesus was even divine? I believe I’m getting a better sense of your views as I read, but please correct me if I’m misinterpreting. You essentially say that many of the gospel stories should be taken metaphorically. This, you argue, doesn’t imply that they can’t have a rich meaning or even be divinely inspired (?) In fact, we may derive more meaning from it by taking a metaphorical/historical approach. But it does mean that Jesus didn’t really do x, y, or z. Clearly you must believe Jesus was divine. Otherwise why would you be a “Christian”? I think you said something along the lines of Jesus being the perfect embodiment of what God is like in human form. That’s different from saying that he WAS God, or God incarnate. So, do you believe he was God? And if so, what has convinced you? I mean if the miracle stories are metaphorical (you say he must have been a great healer, but I think you believe there have been other great healers/mystics), what are we left with as evidence that he was more than a man? He clearly was a revolutionary and a wisdom teacher, but that doesn’t make him more than a man. You are not convinced that he rose in bodily form, which is fine. But is it not just a small step to go from saying that he was “experienced” in some way after his death to saying he didn’t appear at all? Are we placing the idea of his divinity solely on these “experiences” of him, if we aren’t taking the miracle stories or the bodily resurrection literally? As a side note, what if it’s possible for other people’s spirits to appear after death – ordinary people who pass onto a spirit world and aren’t divine but perhaps in very rare occasions can be seen again? Doesn’t it leave open the possibility that Jesus was just one of these and not God incarnate? What has convinced you that he is worthy of being worshiped? Is it the stories of the unshakable belief and devotion by the apostles after his death? And are many of these even credible? (I haven’t read enough to know.) Sorry for the length of my epistle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 22:31:33 GMT -5
My Response
To say the obvious, the core of your letter concerns the divinity of Jesus. About that there’s more than one thing to say. 1. Was Jesus God? No. Not even the New Testament says that. It speaks of him as the Word of God, the Son of God, the Messiah, and so forth, but never simply identifies him with or equates him with God. As John’s gospel puts it, he is the Word become flesh – that is, he reveals what can be seen of God in a finite human life. To say, “I believe Jesus was God” (as some Christians do, or think they are supposed to) goes beyond what the New Testament affirms and is thus more than biblical. He is the Word incarnate – not the disembodied Word 2. Did some of his followers experience Jesus as a divine reality after his death, and have some Christians had such experiences in the centuries since, including into the present? Yes. These experiences led to the conviction that Jesus was “one with God,” “at the right hand of God,” and ultimately to the doctrine of the Trinity: that God is one (monotheism) and yet known/experienced in three primary ways (as God, the Son, and the Spirit). This is the context in which it makes sense to praise and pray to Jesus. But this doesn’t mean that Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus during his historical life, was “God.” 3. Jesus of Nazareth was completely human. He did not have a divine component that made him different in kind from the rest of us. That’s what it means to say he was “true man,” “fully human.” He didn’t have a divine supercharger. 4. Does that make him ordinary? No. I think he is one of the two most remarkable human beings who ever lived. I don’t really care who the other one was – my point is that what we see in Jesus is a human possibility. That’s what makes him so remarkable. If he was also divine, then he’s not all that remarkable. If he had the knowledge and power of God, he could have done so much more. 5. Christian language about the exalted status of Jesus – as the Word of God, the Son of God, the Messiah, and so forth, is testimony, witness: this is who Jesus became and who he is in Christian experience, life, and thought. This is who he is for those of us who are Christians.
Best wishes, Marcus Borg
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 7, 2014 22:55:48 GMT -5
CD that is my thoughts about Jesus being a man. It is far more remarkable that he was able to be so enlightened if he was not divine but a man. If he was divine how is it remarkable and how can any person ever hope to attain his level. But, if Jesus is a man, it does become possible to become enlightened like him. I think that is far more inspiring than a God/man that couldn't sin. But in making him that then the story has to go like this. We can never be good enough to go to heaven so Jesus had to die for our sins and save us and it is only by this event and the mercy of God that we could ever be saved and have eternal life because we are incapable of getting there any other way. I don't get much inspiration from that at all. Where is the challenge? All you have to do is believe in Jesus and carry on. Wouldn't motivate me to change. However, there would be more motivation if I was trying to be more enlightened like someone else was capable of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 23:15:30 GMT -5
CD that is my thoughts about Jesus being a man. It is far more remarkable that he was able to be so enlightened if he was not divine but a man. If he was divine how is it remarkable and how can any person ever hope to attain his level. But, if Jesus is a man, it does become possible to become enlightened like him. I think that is far more inspiring than a God/man that couldn't sin. But in making him that then the story has to go like this. We can never be good enough to go to heaven so Jesus had to die for our sins and save us and it is only by this event and the mercy of God that we could ever be saved and have eternal life because we are incapable of getting there any other way. I don't get much inspiration from that at all. Where is the challenge? All you have to do is believe in Jesus and carry on. Wouldn't motivate me to change. However, there would be more motivation if I was trying to be more enlightened like someone else was capable of. These ideas go radically against the Christian paradigm that has been the mainstream for centuries. Entrenched interests are going to have a difficult time making this kind of change. It has to come eventually. After all, the idea of God knowingly and intentionally sending his son to his painful death on earth is losing currency quickly. God would have to be synonymous with a brutal murderer in order for something like this to happen and fewer people are prepared to accept that notion of God. You're right, intellectual belief is hardly enough to be life-changing for the better, and life-changing things are what we should be seeking for. A deep personal belief does change a person though. We become what we truly believe about. However, mere intellectual won't save/change you for the better.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 7, 2014 23:28:58 GMT -5
CD that is my thoughts about Jesus being a man. It is far more remarkable that he was able to be so enlightened if he was not divine but a man. If he was divine how is it remarkable and how can any person ever hope to attain his level. But, if Jesus is a man, it does become possible to become enlightened like him. I think that is far more inspiring than a God/man that couldn't sin. But in making him that then the story has to go like this. We can never be good enough to go to heaven so Jesus had to die for our sins and save us and it is only by this event and the mercy of God that we could ever be saved and have eternal life because we are incapable of getting there any other way. I don't get much inspiration from that at all. Where is the challenge? All you have to do is believe in Jesus and carry on. Wouldn't motivate me to change. However, there would be more motivation if I was trying to be more enlightened like someone else was capable of. These ideas go radically against the Christian paradigm that has been the mainstream for centuries. Entrenched interests are going to have a difficult time making this kind of change. It has to come eventually. After all, the idea of God knowingly and intentionally sending his son to his painful death on earth is losing currency quickly. God would have to be synonymous with a brutal murderer in order for something like this to happen and fewer people are prepared to accept that notion of God. You're right, intellectual belief is hardly enough to be life-changing for the better, and life-changing things are what we should be seeking for. A deep personal belief does change a person though. We become what we truly believe about. However, mere intellectual won't save/change you for the better. Well in a sense if Jesus is God then God died. I know that's not the traditional thought on it, but how do you see it any other way really. Also, did God die to save us from him? Probably not but the whole trinity thing just doesn't make any sense and looks to me to be the way they got around the belief in 3 gods by making them 1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 1:03:57 GMT -5
These ideas go radically against the Christian paradigm that has been the mainstream for centuries. Entrenched interests are going to have a difficult time making this kind of change. It has to come eventually. After all, the idea of God knowingly and intentionally sending his son to his painful death on earth is losing currency quickly. God would have to be synonymous with a brutal murderer in order for something like this to happen and fewer people are prepared to accept that notion of God. You're right, intellectual belief is hardly enough to be life-changing for the better, and life-changing things are what we should be seeking for. A deep personal belief does change a person though. We become what we truly believe about. However, mere intellectual won't save/change you for the better. Well in a sense if Jesus is God then God died. I know that's not the traditional thought on it, but how do you see it any other way really. Also, did God die to save us from him? Probably not but the whole trinity thing just doesn't make any sense and looks to me to be the way they got around the belief in 3 gods by making them 1. just some verses on whom Jesus is Hebrews 1 1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 1:06:43 GMT -5
Some of the ideas of liberal progressive Christianity have been brought up here on threads such as the one about Exclusivity. This post will contain a letter written to Marcus Borg, a progressive Christian scholar, and the second post is his response. Coincidently, there are some similarities between how Borg views Jesus, and how some 2x2 critics describe the 2x2 view of Jesus. Keen theologians will find this interesting, agree with it or not. www.patheos.com/blogs/marcusborg/2014/06/a-letter-about-jesus/A Letter About Jesus
June 30, 2014 By Marcus Borg 161 CommentsA very few days ago, I received by e-mail a letter about Jesus from a person who is reading one of my books. His thoughts and questions struck me as being of interest to many people. I quote the letter at length and then share my response. The Letter Your book has persuaded me that much of the language of the Bible and theology is metaphorical and should not be taken literally. Granted that, at what point do you think one reaches a gray area as to whether Jesus was even divine? I believe I’m getting a better sense of your views as I read, but please correct me if I’m misinterpreting. You essentially say that many of the gospel stories should be taken metaphorically. This, you argue, doesn’t imply that they can’t have a rich meaning or even be divinely inspired (?) In fact, we may derive more meaning from it by taking a metaphorical/historical approach. But it does mean that Jesus didn’t really do x, y, or z. Clearly you must believe Jesus was divine. Otherwise why would you be a “Christian”? I think you said something along the lines of Jesus being the perfect embodiment of what God is like in human form. That’s different from saying that he WAS God, or God incarnate. So, do you believe he was God? And if so, what has convinced you? I mean if the miracle stories are metaphorical (you say he must have been a great healer, but I think you believe there have been other great healers/mystics), what are we left with as evidence that he was more than a man? He clearly was a revolutionary and a wisdom teacher, but that doesn’t make him more than a man. You are not convinced that he rose in bodily form, which is fine. But is it not just a small step to go from saying that he was “experienced” in some way after his death to saying he didn’t appear at all? Are we placing the idea of his divinity solely on these “experiences” of him, if we aren’t taking the miracle stories or the bodily resurrection literally? As a side note, what if it’s possible for other people’s spirits to appear after death – ordinary people who pass onto a spirit world and aren’t divine but perhaps in very rare occasions can be seen again? Doesn’t it leave open the possibility that Jesus was just one of these and not God incarnate? What has convinced you that he is worthy of being worshiped? Is it the stories of the unshakable belief and devotion by the apostles after his death? And are many of these even credible? (I haven’t read enough to know.) Sorry for the length of my epistle.where does this emerging understanding of Jesus come from?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 7:49:10 GMT -5
I would counter the view that Marcus Borg's views represent an emerging understanding of Jesus. There have been a number of people over the years who have denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus and denounced many of the core beliefs of Christianity. There is not a lot new about Marcus' beliefs except some tailoring to the particular society or culture we live in. His views tend to get a bit of carriage in a couple of churches who embrace more liberal theology but for some reason churches which embrace liberal theology tend to decline at a fairly rapid rate. Yes, much of it isn't really new. What I meant by "emerging view" is that the view is emerging as a more common way to look at Christianity and I will address your correct observation that liberal churches tend to decline in membership, and the reason for it. It's true that as people make the transition from fundamentalism into institutional liberal Christianity, many don't stop the journey there and end up as unaffiliated Christians. It's practically inevitable, as institutional Christianity continues its meltdown. To see that as an emerging trend, just pick any advanced country with a Christian heritage and look at the statistics: unaffiliated numbers are 'way up and some studies indicate it is the journey from fundamentalism to liberalism, then out the door and into the real world. People are finding nonsensical and untenable ideas in fundamentalism and start the process toward liberalism to try to continue to find meaning, then end up largely out of church altogether. In some ways that's a good thing and rather than indicates the failure of liberal Christianity, it is highlighting the success of liberal Christianity. Let's face it, the essence of Christ is so simple and simply engaged in our lives that we hardly need to spend a large portion of our lives immobilized in a church pew listening to either theologies or metaphorical ideas which make simple principles that we already know into complicated ones. I know quite a few people who have gone that full journey: they tend to be younger, are cultural Christians, may attend a church occasionally (often to give their kids some exposure) and otherwise lead a good Christ-based life. At some point, this will be the norm and reflects liberal Christianity which is far more concerned about a sound life on earth than in fantastic theologies and heaven/hell. The real challenge for the next generation will be to how to infuse the "Christ-mind" into the world. It looks like traditional church is not going to be the way to do it. The flow is away from the institutions and may never reverse. FYI, the most liberal church in our area is an Anglican Church which at first surprised me as I had always stereotyped Anglicanism as very close to Catholicism. Exactly Ross and also the way I see it and what I was trying to convey. The charges of heresy against the 2x2's on the divinity question are false charges. They may not embrace the whole trinity concept but in the big picture, they are pretty much mainstream on it. A person could talk trinity ideas in fellowship meeting every Sunday and bother no one unless they started using the extra-biblical terminology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 7:49:48 GMT -5
Some of the ideas of liberal progressive Christianity have been brought up here on threads such as the one about Exclusivity. This post will contain a letter written to Marcus Borg, a progressive Christian scholar, and the second post is his response. Coincidently, there are some similarities between how Borg views Jesus, and how some 2x2 critics describe the 2x2 view of Jesus. Keen theologians will find this interesting, agree with it or not. www.patheos.com/blogs/marcusborg/2014/06/a-letter-about-jesus/A Letter About Jesus
June 30, 2014 By Marcus Borg 161 CommentsA very few days ago, I received by e-mail a letter about Jesus from a person who is reading one of my books. His thoughts and questions struck me as being of interest to many people. I quote the letter at length and then share my response. The Letter Your book has persuaded me that much of the language of the Bible and theology is metaphorical and should not be taken literally. Granted that, at what point do you think one reaches a gray area as to whether Jesus was even divine? I believe I’m getting a better sense of your views as I read, but please correct me if I’m misinterpreting. You essentially say that many of the gospel stories should be taken metaphorically. This, you argue, doesn’t imply that they can’t have a rich meaning or even be divinely inspired (?) In fact, we may derive more meaning from it by taking a metaphorical/historical approach. But it does mean that Jesus didn’t really do x, y, or z. Clearly you must believe Jesus was divine. Otherwise why would you be a “Christian”? I think you said something along the lines of Jesus being the perfect embodiment of what God is like in human form. That’s different from saying that he WAS God, or God incarnate. So, do you believe he was God? And if so, what has convinced you? I mean if the miracle stories are metaphorical (you say he must have been a great healer, but I think you believe there have been other great healers/mystics), what are we left with as evidence that he was more than a man? He clearly was a revolutionary and a wisdom teacher, but that doesn’t make him more than a man. You are not convinced that he rose in bodily form, which is fine. But is it not just a small step to go from saying that he was “experienced” in some way after his death to saying he didn’t appear at all? Are we placing the idea of his divinity solely on these “experiences” of him, if we aren’t taking the miracle stories or the bodily resurrection literally? As a side note, what if it’s possible for other people’s spirits to appear after death – ordinary people who pass onto a spirit world and aren’t divine but perhaps in very rare occasions can be seen again? Doesn’t it leave open the possibility that Jesus was just one of these and not God incarnate? What has convinced you that he is worthy of being worshiped? Is it the stories of the unshakable belief and devotion by the apostles after his death? And are many of these even credible? (I haven’t read enough to know.) Sorry for the length of my epistle.where does this emerging understanding of Jesus come from? Bible study.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 8, 2014 9:51:13 GMT -5
CD that is my thoughts about Jesus being a man. It is far more remarkable that he was able to be so enlightened if he was not divine but a man. If he was divine how is it remarkable and how can any person ever hope to attain his level. But, if Jesus is a man, it does become possible to become enlightened like him. I think that is far more inspiring than a God/man that couldn't sin. But in making him that then the story has to go like this. We can never be good enough to go to heaven so Jesus had to die for our sins and save us and it is only by this event and the mercy of God that we could ever be saved and have eternal life because we are incapable of getting there any other way. I don't get much inspiration from that at all. Where is the challenge? All you have to do is believe in Jesus and carry on. Wouldn't motivate me to change. However, there would be more motivation if I was trying to be more enlightened like someone else was capable of. These ideas go radically against the Christian paradigm that has been the mainstream for centuries. Entrenched interests are going to have a difficult time making this kind of change. It has to come eventually. After all, the idea of God knowingly and intentionally sending his son to his painful death on earth is losing currency quickly. God would have to be synonymous with a brutal murderer in order for something like this to happen and fewer people are prepared to accept that notion of God. You're right, intellectual belief is hardly enough to be life-changing for the better, and life-changing things are what we should be seeking for. A deep personal belief does change a person though. We become what we truly believe about. However, mere intellectual won't save/change you for the better. Aww, CD! Don't forget that John 3:16 says "That God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him, should not perish but have everlasting life." That speaks of "love". John 1:1 simply states that the "Word" was in the beginning and was with God and the Word was God. God shouldn't be considered a brutal murderer since HE knows very well, that HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON is HIS WORD and that HIS WORD will be resurrected into LIFE EVERLASTING! (BTW, I'm not screaming here! Just trying to make the point).....so IF you knew beyond a doubt that YOUR only son could live again without a doubt and without ever dying AGAIN and there was a need for his human flesh to die(say like saving a multitude of different people with donated body parts) and your son was agreeable to the sacrifice of himself as long as you were there to support him, would you not let the son do what needed done? Again I'm saying you know that this preliminary death is only of this earthly flesh and that he will arise with body whole and will live eternally, why would you not let your son do what he sees needed done? This sacrifice was to give others that same chance at the eternal life the Son will have as the "firstborn of the resurrection"....God knowing full well that His Son's body would not even see corruption like that of other human flesh will likely do. It was God's Word that created all things in and on and of the earth, so the bible says...so the Word feels responsible that all of this creation stays complete for the Father's good pleasure...so what else can the Word do but allow himself to be sacrifice so that his human blood would be that which cleanses all that creation of its sins, faults etc and that by doing this ALL will be there complete, healthy and whole for the FAther's good pleasure, just as it was created for, in the beginning! I think we often forget that it was God's Word that was crucified, when we just think about the human body Jesus being on that cross......but that which is the truth of the creation is what was crucified and that because people sin against that truth borne by that Word of God........it all came about by a love that humans have little comprehension of.......and I know I'll get plenty of attacks on that....but I just read today that "love" is the law fulfilled. ONE WORD is the law fulfilled and that is "love". Again, we cannot comprehend such a love that sacrifices that which brought us into being or created us....EXCEPT we continually forget that it was well known before that sacrifice was ever completed in thought by the Father or the Son, that the Son would not see corruption and that the Son would live eternally, never to die again...people could not crucify him again no matter how many have tried or will try throughout the ages! We used to sing about a "love that will not let me go." Do we even understand that love? NOt in totality!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 8, 2014 12:39:58 GMT -5
CD and Ross. I think it's interesting that the more liberal churches don't last long. Also, CD's remark that they often become unaffiliated Christians. That is really a Gnostic thought. The Gnostics believed that newcomers that needed doctrine and dogma were fed that in the form of a church with legalisms, but it wasn't expected that anyone stay at that stage of growth. They were expected to form enough of a personal relationship with God that they no longer needed the doctrine and dogma of the newborns in the kingdom. Once that relationship strengthened, they would realize that none of that was necessary to have a relationship with God. Much of the beliefs from that level of Gnosticism was never written down that we know of and it is stated that there was no need because it was at that point universal and individual at the same time. It was a 'knowing' which is actually what Gnosis was.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 12:51:51 GMT -5
CD and Ross. I think it's interesting that the more liberal churches don't last long. Also, CD's remark that they often become unaffiliated Christians. That is really a Gnostic thought. The Gnostics believed that newcomers that needed doctrine and dogma were fed that in the form of a church with legalisms, but it wasn't expected that anyone stay at that stage of growth. They were expected to form enough of a personal relationship with God that they no longer needed the doctrine and dogma of the newborns in the kingdom. Once that relationship strengthened, they would realize that none of that was necessary to have a relationship with God. Much of the beliefs from that level of Gnosticism was never written down that we know of and it is stated that there was no need because it was at that point universal and individual at the same time. It was a 'knowing' which is actually what Gnosis was. Gnostic or not, it makes good sense. Most churches, in fact almost all institutions, eventually change their first priority to be self-perpetuation. When that happens (and it almost always does), then a church institution needs to keep its members in need of it, otherwise the church disappears. Dependency of the members is essential to the perpetuation of the institution. The institution has long forgotten why it was created to exist in the first place. This is what is happening with the process from fundamentalism to liberalism to unaffiliated. It's not that a lot of those people hate the churches, but their spiritual journey has brought them to a point where the churches aren't much help anymore. Sort of the milk vs meat biblical idea and the churches keep feeding their flock milk which keeps them coming back. The meateaters move on to the unaffiliated position. I think there will be a use for church organizations in the future, but it is evolving now and will continue to evolve as they grope to find their way to usefulness for the community. Keeping their flock dependent on them is not a good way to go.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 8, 2014 16:31:31 GMT -5
Some of the ideas of liberal progressive Christianity have been brought up here on threads such as the one about Exclusivity. This post will contain a letter written to Marcus Borg, a progressive Christian scholar, and the second post is his response. Coincidently, there are some similarities between how Borg views Jesus, and how some 2x2 critics describe the 2x2 view of Jesus. Keen theologians will find this interesting, agree with it or not. www.patheos.com/blogs/marcusborg/2014/06/a-letter-about-jesus/A Letter About Jesus
June 30, 2014 By Marcus Borg 161 CommentsA very few days ago, I received by e-mail a letter about Jesus from a person who is reading one of my books. His thoughts and questions struck me as being of interest to many people. I quote the letter at length and then share my response. The Letter Your book has persuaded me that much of the language of the Bible and theology is metaphorical and should not be taken literally. Granted that, at what point do you think one reaches a gray area as to whether Jesus was even divine? I believe I’m getting a better sense of your views as I read, but please correct me if I’m misinterpreting. You essentially say that many of the gospel stories should be taken metaphorically. This, you argue, doesn’t imply that they can’t have a rich meaning or even be divinely inspired (?) In fact, we may derive more meaning from it by taking a metaphorical/historical approach. But it does mean that Jesus didn’t really do x, y, or z. Clearly you must believe Jesus was divine. Otherwise why would you be a “Christian”? I think you said something along the lines of Jesus being the perfect embodiment of what God is like in human form. That’s different from saying that he WAS God, or God incarnate. So, do you believe he was God? And if so, what has convinced you? I mean if the miracle stories are metaphorical (you say he must have been a great healer, but I think you believe there have been other great healers/mystics), what are we left with as evidence that he was more than a man? He clearly was a revolutionary and a wisdom teacher, but that doesn’t make him more than a man. You are not convinced that he rose in bodily form, which is fine. But is it not just a small step to go from saying that he was “experienced” in some way after his death to saying he didn’t appear at all? Are we placing the idea of his divinity solely on these “experiences” of him, if we aren’t taking the miracle stories or the bodily resurrection literally? As a side note, what if it’s possible for other people’s spirits to appear after death – ordinary people who pass onto a spirit world and aren’t divine but perhaps in very rare occasions can be seen again? Doesn’t it leave open the possibility that Jesus was just one of these and not God incarnate? What has convinced you that he is worthy of being worshiped? Is it the stories of the unshakable belief and devotion by the apostles after his death? And are many of these even credible? (I haven’t read enough to know.) Sorry for the length of my epistle.where does this emerging understanding of Jesus come from? More appropriately referred to as a new interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 8, 2014 16:36:18 GMT -5
CD and Ross. I think it's interesting that the more liberal churches don't last long. Also, CD's remark that they often become unaffiliated Christians. That is really a Gnostic thought. The Gnostics believed that newcomers that needed doctrine and dogma were fed that in the form of a church with legalisms, but it wasn't expected that anyone stay at that stage of growth. They were expected to form enough of a personal relationship with God that they no longer needed the doctrine and dogma of the newborns in the kingdom. Once that relationship strengthened, they would realize that none of that was necessary to have a relationship with God. Much of the beliefs from that level of Gnosticism was never written down that we know of and it is stated that there was no need because it was at that point universal and individual at the same time. It was a 'knowing' which is actually what Gnosis was. All that separates these new revelations from Gnosticism is the fact that the revelations are tailored to satisfy the frame of reference of the day.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Jul 8, 2014 17:45:04 GMT -5
where does this emerging understanding of Jesus come from? I have been reading a number of theologians for the past two and a half years, most of whom speak along similar lines as Borg. I have one of Borg's books, though I have not read it yet, as I prefer others' deeper engagement with past traditions, while still asking "What is in this for us today?" I am open to reading Borg's book, just haven't yet! I chose the above quote as my entry point into the conversation, as I feel it is important to note that mainstream Christianity has been questioned by a number of serious theologians for quite some time, and the ones I have read generally seem to point to Danish existentialist philosopher/theologian Soren Kierkegaard, who lived in the middle of the 19th century, as an early, if not the first, instance of this serious re-engagement. Additionally, this re-thinking is not entirely parallel with modern liberal Christianity. Though these authors definitely do feel an addressing of society's issues is vital, they are to one degree or another leery of simply "jumping on the bandwagon" with every social cause that comes along, their concern not being so much a disagreement that there is a problem, but more in not wanting to simply engage in an unthinking "activism." I am on this page too, being aware of many issues, but uncomfortable with many committees and organizations I have been involved with, who end up seeming to spend more time keeping the organization going . . . Since Kierkegaard, numerous "schools" have arisen that address one side or another of these questions, but frequently the supposedly originating "schools" become too focused on one concept or another, basically forming another idol, much like both Luther's and Calvin's ideas have become respectively too "easy" or awfully oppressive. I have appreciated these theologians, who make an effort to grapple with the various phases, attempting to see the fears and the mythos of the place and era in which they originated. Some of these "schools" are" existentialism, 19th century Christian liberalism, Barthianism (after Karl Barth), and neo-conservative (somewhat inaccurately named by others looking on, as I understand). There is much that could be discussed here! I have read much addressing creation, "fallen" humanity, the virgin birth, Jesus' life and death, the trinity, canonical scripture - In general, I agree with assertions that modern humanity needs to de-literalize its reading of the bible, once again finding the power of myth and symbol to express truths that are not definable objects, that our minds cannot fully comprehend.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 8, 2014 18:12:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Jul 8, 2014 18:19:13 GMT -5
CD and Ross. I think it's interesting that the more liberal churches don't last long. Also, CD's remark that they often become unaffiliated Christians. That is really a Gnostic thought. The Gnostics believed that newcomers that needed doctrine and dogma were fed that in the form of a church with legalisms, but it wasn't expected that anyone stay at that stage of growth. They were expected to form enough of a personal relationship with God that they no longer needed the doctrine and dogma of the newborns in the kingdom. Once that relationship strengthened, they would realize that none of that was necessary to have a relationship with God. Much of the beliefs from that level of Gnosticism was never written down that we know of and it is stated that there was no need because it was at that point universal and individual at the same time. It was a 'knowing' which is actually what Gnosis was. I did join a church in Honolulu (and am still an inactive member, since I'm now living on Guam), which is known (notorious?) as the most liberal church in Hawai'i. It has been around a little over sixty years now. Near the University of Hawai'i at Manoa campus, it was first formed by students of many ethnicities, who were challenging the existence in Hawai'i of the various ethnic-based Christian churches - Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Caucasian, etc. Crossroads is a UCC congregation, allowing them much freedom in their doctrine, organization, etc. UCC was formed by the merging of three or four churches, one of which was the Congregational Church, which originally missionized Hawai'i and eastern Micronesia. I chose to join this church because of it's liberal orientation (and yes, it felt very weird joining a church!), but I grew disappointed with it during my year or so of active involvement. They actively engaged with several concerns that are important to me - Hawaiian ways of living, homeless people, gay and lesbian rights, but I soon began to wonder if they, as a church, offered anything different than educational and other community organizations around them, except maybe as a place to allow them to come together. I knew at the time I joined that the current pastor is an "out" lesbian, and that is part of reason I joined. There are many gay or lesbian people in the congregation, many of whom I did not even recognize as such until I received a copy of the church address book, learning to my surprise of many couples among this group - one was the Sunday school teacher/leader, whose partner was the head of the Council (I forget what they call it now). Another was the choir director of many years (now retired) - his partner was not a church member, but showed up occasionally. I very much liked all of these people, but it seemed the pastor's primary focus was gay rights activism, and I felt she too easily dismissed past traditions and any serious theology. I like to engage with the questions. Oh! And yes, there were many other straight couples in the church too! I was put on several committees, and was asked to be a member of the council, which is not at all my cup of tea, but I did it. Committees and such are a good way of keeping someone quiet and focused on monetary concerns! But, much of the congregation was growing personally nervous with the pastor, and a man who did arbitration/conflict settlement was brought in, to meet with the council. After some discussion, the pastor was asked to leave the group, while we all discussed our personal concerns about her. I hesitatingly (I don't do well in groups!) brought up something that I had repeatedly felt - her way of dismissing any concerns I brought up about theology. It seems like she was afraid that any engagement with older traditions will automatically result in gay-bashing, which is not true! I simply feel that we losing something through an attitude like hers, which was stated from the pulpit as "That was there way of connecting with God; now we do it this way. Anyway, my concern seemed to really take hold, with others mentioning how they too noticed her kind of silencing people when she didn't agree. It reminded of certain other religious leaders I have dealt with . . . I moved shortly after that meeting, but I still receive regular e-mails with church news, and learned a few weeks ago that the pastor and the church have decided to "end their current relationship." I believe it is this Sunday that it to be her last sermon from that pulpit, so I am of course eager to watch developments! I have digressed at length! But hopefully, I have shown to a degree that "liberal Christianity" is a complex thing in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Jul 8, 2014 18:30:22 GMT -5
While recent scholarship has helpfully added to the 'emerging' view, I don't think it can be seen as entirely separate from older challenges to prevailing views. I am reading these same things about views on scripture in books that were authored decades ago, but by theologians who have not made it into the popular thinking. I believe they should be credited for opening up space in which discussion has begun to take place. It's not that they need applause or anything, but they have said these things while deeply thinking through past tradition, and I feel much is lost if we simply ignore this deep engagement. I do not see scripture as something handed down from heaven, with a set of unchangeable truths - they must be interpreted for each age and place - yet understanding how God has dealt with people in past ages brings an anchor as well, helping us to not be "blown about by every wind of doctrine."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 18:35:49 GMT -5
where does this emerging understanding of Jesus come from? More appropriately referred to as a new interpretation. so in other words God has been cut out of the loop? after all He is the giver of all interpretation that has to do with the Kingdom, or is man now saying this is how we interpret it and you have to accept that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 18:41:14 GMT -5
While recent scholarship has helpfully added to the 'emerging' view, I don't think it can be seen as entirely separate from older challenges to prevailing views. I am reading these same things about views on scripture in books that were authored decades ago, but by theologians who have not made it into the popular thinking. I believe they should be credited for opening up space in which discussion has begun to take place. It's not that they need applause or anything, but they have said these things while deeply thinking through past tradition, and I feel much is lost if we simply ignore this deep engagement. I do not see scripture as something handed down from heaven, with a set of unchangeable truths - they must be interpreted for each age and place - yet understanding how God has dealt with people in past ages brings an anchor as well, helping us to not be "blown about by every wind of doctrine." Phyllis Tickle writes a book called "The Great Emergence" which traces the current upheaval back to around the mid-19th century with its rapid new scientific discoveries of Freud, Darwin, Jung and Faraday, along with the emergence of all sorts of new Christian movements such as from Campbell who was one of the most prominent to challenge Christian exclusivity. Scholars like Borg and other Jesus Seminar scholars are both products and makers of the overall process.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Jul 8, 2014 18:50:45 GMT -5
More appropriately referred to as a new interpretation. so in other words God has been cut out of the loop? after all He is the giver of all interpretation that has to do with the Kingdom, or is man now saying this is how we interpret it and you have to accept that? ' I think that is a good question, Virgo. Though I do use the word 'interpretation,' I do have reservations, as it can lead to simply using scripture in any way we like. Those I find most helpful speak of interpretation as a matter of deep intellectual engagement, but not divorced from revelation. 'Revelation' can also lead to problems, when it is seen as a one-time given. I find that revelation actually demands more of me, asking me to release all those little ideas and things that make me think I'm secure, while interpretation helps me to understand just what this means in my generation. But, I think I do understand your concern, in that it becomes too easy to just allow deeply meaningful teachings to simply align themselves with mainstream culture. Am I making any sense?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 8, 2014 19:35:16 GMT -5
More appropriately referred to as a new interpretation. so in other words God has been cut out of the loop? after all He is the giver of all interpretation that has to do with the Kingdom, or is man now saying this is how we interpret it and you have to accept that? It depends which god you're talking about. People have always worshiped the god that served them best. Christians who believe they worship the god of Abraham will, of course, object to that statement, because they believe they are indeed worshiping the same god. However, the god of Abraham is hardly recognizable compared to the god of modern Christians. So you can call it a different god, or a new interpretation of an old god. Either way, the idea that "god never changes" is a bit of a fantasy. Re: "is man now saying this is how we interpret it and you have to accept that"... Do you see anything wrong with that statement?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 8, 2014 21:52:36 GMT -5
More appropriately referred to as a new interpretation. so in other words God has been cut out of the loop? after all He is the giver of all interpretation that has to do with the Kingdom, or is man now saying this is how we interpret it and you have to accept that? I guess what comes to mind for me any time someone says this is why do you feel that the only 'revelations' that are acceptable happened 1500 to 2000+ years ago? Do you really think that God just quit talking? Why would he do that? Why wouldn't he try to help out with each age, rewording or perhaps even revealing more, to meet the needs of a new and different time?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 8, 2014 21:58:08 GMT -5
CD and Ross. I think it's interesting that the more liberal churches don't last long. Also, CD's remark that they often become unaffiliated Christians. That is really a Gnostic thought. The Gnostics believed that newcomers that needed doctrine and dogma were fed that in the form of a church with legalisms, but it wasn't expected that anyone stay at that stage of growth. They were expected to form enough of a personal relationship with God that they no longer needed the doctrine and dogma of the newborns in the kingdom. Once that relationship strengthened, they would realize that none of that was necessary to have a relationship with God. Much of the beliefs from that level of Gnosticism was never written down that we know of and it is stated that there was no need because it was at that point universal and individual at the same time. It was a 'knowing' which is actually what Gnosis was. Gnostic or not, it makes good sense. Most churches, in fact almost all institutions, eventually change their first priority to be self-perpetuation. When that happens (and it almost always does), then a church institution needs to keep its members in need of it, otherwise the church disappears. Dependency of the members is essential to the perpetuation of the institution. The institution has long forgotten why it was created to exist in the first place. This is what is happening with the process from fundamentalism to liberalism to unaffiliated. It's not that a lot of those people hate the churches, but their spiritual journey has brought them to a point where the churches aren't much help anymore. Sort of the milk vs meat biblical idea and the churches keep feeding their flock milk which keeps them coming back. The meateaters move on to the unaffiliated position. I think there will be a use for church organizations in the future, but it is evolving now and will continue to evolve as they grope to find their way to usefulness for the community. Keeping their flock dependent on them is not a good way to go. Yes the milk/meat reference was exactly what they referred to when they talked about those who needed a church and guidance and those who no longer did and the church could no longer offer anything of real value because they had progressed beyond that point in their relationship with God. We may see more liberal churches continue to exist, but I believe the format will be very much like an organization that takes care of the needs of those around them. The Unitarian Church is a lot like this, but it also offers spiritual food for those who want that. There are many different beliefs in the congregation. The one I am with has atheists, Wiccans, Christians, agnostics. Many different lines of thought all joining together to help make a better community where ever they are but also with room for the spiritual for those who need that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 22:25:20 GMT -5
Gnostic or not, it makes good sense. Most churches, in fact almost all institutions, eventually change their first priority to be self-perpetuation. When that happens (and it almost always does), then a church institution needs to keep its members in need of it, otherwise the church disappears. Dependency of the members is essential to the perpetuation of the institution. The institution has long forgotten why it was created to exist in the first place. This is what is happening with the process from fundamentalism to liberalism to unaffiliated. It's not that a lot of those people hate the churches, but their spiritual journey has brought them to a point where the churches aren't much help anymore. Sort of the milk vs meat biblical idea and the churches keep feeding their flock milk which keeps them coming back. The meateaters move on to the unaffiliated position. I think there will be a use for church organizations in the future, but it is evolving now and will continue to evolve as they grope to find their way to usefulness for the community. Keeping their flock dependent on them is not a good way to go. Yes the milk/meat reference was exactly what they referred to when they talked about those who needed a church and guidance and those who no longer did and the church could no longer offer anything of real value because they had progressed beyond that point in their relationship with God. We may see more liberal churches continue to exist, but I believe the format will be very much like an organization that takes care of the needs of those around them. The Unitarian Church is a lot like this, but it also offers spiritual food for those who want that. There are many different beliefs in the congregation. The one I am with has atheists, Wiccans, Christians, agnostics. Many different lines of thought all joining together to help make a better community where ever they are but also with room for the spiritual for those who need that. Exactly. Liberal churches are far less focused on an afterlife and what may or may not happen, and much more concerned about matters of compassion and charity in this life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 22:44:54 GMT -5
so in other words God has been cut out of the loop? after all He is the giver of all interpretation that has to do with the Kingdom, or is man now saying this is how we interpret it and you have to accept that? ' I think that is a good question, Virgo. Though I do use the word 'interpretation,' I do have reservations, as it can lead to simply using scripture in any way we like. Those I find most helpful speak of interpretation as a matter of deep intellectual engagement, but not divorced from revelation. 'Revelation' can also lead to problems, when it is seen as a one-time given. I find that revelation actually demands more of me, asking me to release all those little ideas and things that make me think I'm secure, while interpretation helps me to understand just what this means in my generation. But, I think I do understand your concern, in that it becomes too easy to just allow deeply meaningful teachings to simply align themselves with mainstream culture. Am I making any sense? yes you make sense but don't you think there is a very real danger in that? we know what God thinks of man's intelligence and plainly shows He doesn't regard man's thoughts in any way Peters revelation of Jesus was from God and that is how it should and can only be, to even allow our own reasoning to try to interpret Gods word will only lead into a maze thus the state of religion today
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 22:53:09 GMT -5
so in other words God has been cut out of the loop? after all He is the giver of all interpretation that has to do with the Kingdom, or is man now saying this is how we interpret it and you have to accept that? It depends which god you're talking about. People have always worshiped the god that served them best. Christians who believe they worship the god of Abraham will, of course, object to that statement, because they believe they are indeed worshiping the same god. However, the god of Abraham is hardly recognizable compared to the god of modern Christians. So you can call it a different god, or a new interpretation of an old god. Either way, the idea that "god never changes" is a bit of a fantasy. Re: "is man now saying this is how we interpret it and you have to accept that"... Do you see anything wrong with that statement? God the Father of Jesus Christ and that is the problem, God has told us very plainy that we are to worship Him not the god that suits us the reason that the god of Abraham is hardly recognizable compared to the god of modern Christians is because he is not the God of Abraham but the god of their own choosing, the God of Abraham is very reconizable to those whom He will show Himself to no i don't but i would change you to He has.........
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 8, 2014 22:56:43 GMT -5
It depends which god you're talking about. People have always worshiped the god that served them best. Christians who believe they worship the god of Abraham will, of course, object to that statement, because they believe they are indeed worshiping the same god. However, the god of Abraham is hardly recognizable compared to the god of modern Christians. So you can call it a different god, or a new interpretation of an old god. Either way, the idea that "god never changes" is a bit of a fantasy. Re: "is man now saying this is how we interpret it and you have to accept that"... Do you see anything wrong with that statement? God the Father of Jesus Christ and that is the problem, God has told us very plainy that we are to worship Him not the god that suits us the reason that the god of Abraham is hardly recognizable compared to the god of modern Christians is because he is not the God of Abraham but the god of their own choosing, the God of Abraham is very reconizable to those whom He will show Himself to no i don't but i would change you to He has......... Sorry, I don't know what you are trying to say here. Simply put, I suspect you believe that "your" god is the same entity as Abraham's God.
|
|