|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Who do you think he is? Jesus, that is
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
In the thread 'God does not go where he is not wanted' various people, like SusanDoris, Boogie, Macrina, and rolyn have expressed views that are not what you might call received Christian belief. There are doubtless others, like me, who have nodded, and said 'that's just what I think' and not posted anything.
Could I ask you all, where do you put Jesus in your beliefs? Was/is he divine, a prophet, a made-up story, or one in the long line of theologically-minded men, within every belief system man has ever devised?
I'm not asking so that I can tear you down, call you to Hell or whatever. I genuinely want to know. I'm as puzzled, uncertain and doubting about God as you are. If you can contribute to this thread, I'd really like to hear you. Or you can PM me.
Please, I already know the views of Jesus from the A of evangelical charismatic dogma right through to the Z of rather vague liberal Christian thought. So if you are one of The Committed, with your beliefs firmly set, done and dusted, then leave this thread to those of us who are wandering in a very 21st century cloud of unknowing, doubts and unbelief.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What about those of us who do both?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, I'd still take an orthodox and creedal line on this one - but I don't think you were wanting to hear from that end of the spectrum ...
I doesn't mean I don't have doubts nor that I immediately dismiss anyone else who doesn't hold to an historic, creedal position ...
Whether we are committed to a full-on small o orthodox position or are exploring alternatives - we can all still act with integrity.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
I'm a bit like Martin60 (eek!) in that I sort of fall into both camps.
If I think about Jesus then it's pretty much exclusively in terms that wouldn't ruffle feathers in any MOR UK Evangelical setting: Son of God, fully human, saviour of the world, virgin birth, crucified, resurrected, living etc. I genuinely struggle to think of Jesus in any other terms. I can't buy into the just-a-wise-teacher or a-convenient-fiction or created-by-the-Romans-to-encourage-forelock-tugging theories. They seem flawed, hollow, and also (weirdly) less supported by the 'evidence'* than just going with a conventional Christian understanding.
BUT at the same time as holding that view of Jesus, I also often struggle to get behind the whole concept of God, and struggle massively with a lot of what now seems to me to be overly simplistic (or even just wishful thinking) theology that's taken as axiomatic and self-evident within a lot of the church (local and wider). So you read an article, or listen to a sermon, or talk with a friend and what's being said is pretty conventional fare but my internal (and sometimes external) reaction is "Yeah, but that's bollocks, isn't it? Surely you don't really think that?".
But if it's all bollocks then where does that leave Jesus? Because if it's all bollocks then clearly he isn't the Son of God etc. etc. So for me, my central and (it seems) tenaciously resilient view of who Jesus is keeps me hanging on in there and navigating new (to me) routes through the stuff that's clearly hooey in order to have some kind of nod at a coherent theology/faith. Or at least, a desire for one!
(Not sure if that helps at all. Probably not).
*I appreciate evidence can be a loaded term here, but it's the best word I can find for indicative but not incontrovertible 'stuff'
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ohhhhhhh yes it does snags. You're not getting away from me that easily. It's ALLLLLL bollocks AND He's the incarnate God the Son of God.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think Jesus was fully human.
He was divine in the sense that he was so full of God's spirit (all that is good) as to do no wrong. He was the first and only person to be sinless and perfect in every way. Not because he was God but because he was full of God.
So to be Christian is to follow him. Which means (imo) to allow God (all that is good) to fill us as much as we humanly can.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
My own feelings/ experience echo that which snags expressed so well.
I hope you don't mind those of us who are a bit more small-o orthodox chiming in. I appreciate what you're trying to do here, Nicodemia, and think that's a hugely valuable thing-- to create a space for that sort of discussion, and hope that will happen here and we won't crowd it out. But perhaps it's helpful to hear as well that those of us in the more mainstream crowd have similar ambivalence, doubts, cognitive dissonance, etc.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think Jesus knew he was going to die ('tho he probably expected it to be by stoning) simply because he knew he was preaching a dangerous message.
I don't think his death did anything spiritual - I think it shocked his followers into deciding to follow his ways come what may. I think this is what happened at pentecost - a collective 'we're going to keep this going'.
The resurrection? I like to think it was a demonstration that there will be some kind of life after death, but who knows? I don't, but I do have some hope, enough not to dismiss it out of hand.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The human part is rather easy. The god part rather hard.
I have devolved to 'showing us principles to live by' and am willing for the supernatural aspects. Willing does mean belief nor disbelief nor caring nor not caring. More like a suspension of criticality and judgement. I might liken it to watching a movie or reading a book. When 'magical realism'* comes up, I have to choose rejection of it as impossible or decide to accept for the time being because it is worth doing. The reason for this acceptance temporarily is to enjoy, feel comforted, have my consciousness expanded. I don't do this for all stories and everything. The magical miracles don't really need more than a child's appreciation. I don't need to believe incredible things to enjoy and adhere. I recall Sebastian in the novel Brideshead Revisited, who says he believes because it is beautiful. I accept Sebastian's version on a temporary basis when it pleases me so to do.
*magical realism is a literary form.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I believe what the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says about him, as it has been interpreted and applied down the centuries by the Orthodox Church.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Wuntoo
Shipmate
# 5673
|
Posted
When I rejected GOD I had to sort this one out.
So, nowadays I ask 'Which Jesus are you talking about?' There were many of that name, some of them very good people. None of them was divine, for me.
The followers of the Jesus of the gospels reported him saying good things, leading a good life. I don't think that's the whole story but it's a good start for those who want it.
--------------------
Blessed are the cracked for they let in the light.
Posts: 1950 | From: Somewhere else. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
At one time I would have gone all the way with you on that, Mousethief.
BUT, doubts set in, for various reasons. and now I am at the position now that I stated in my OP.
It would be comforting to be one of The Committed again. But I'm with Snags, vacillating between one end of the paradox and the other.
Unsettling, uncomfortable, unholy and unattached.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The all bollocks has to include the stuff Jesus had to believe as a Jew of course. In God the Killer.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I feel and think that Jesus, the person at the the centre of the Gospel accounts, did exist as a historical figure. By today's standards it is unlikely this person had special or supernatural power, yet those who followed or had close contact with him clearly felt he did.
Come his death, and the subsequent disappearance of the body a spiritual movement occurred in the minds of individuals, which then became a collective/ collectives and eventually, with the help of Rome, the official version of Christianity was born.
All this is not to dismiss or diminish the spiritual power of Jesus, which can be made as real to a person today as is was to a person who met Him 2000 yrs ago.
He showed me the way to something I feel an believe to be a force greater than myself. That I cannot deny, no matter how much convoluted theology Christianity has come up with to confuse matters.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is ... like Snags, I struggle with the idea that some of the alternative ideas are any more 'credible' than orthodox Christian belief (whether small o or Big O).
I mean, as unorthodox as 'Jesus wasn't God, he was fully human but he was so full of God as to be sinless and so like God ...' certainly is, how is it any more believable than conventional, creedal Christianity's views on the Incarnation are?
Ok, so it needn't involve a virgin birth or a supernatural resurrection ... but you still have to explain how and why Jesus could be more 'full of God' than anyone else has been before or since ...
There is, of course, an 'internal logic' within any faith system - be it traditional Nicene-Chalcedonian Christianity or anything else ...
But I don't see what is so much better / more commendable about concocting our own version because we don't like the former.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The human part is rather easy. The god part rather hard.
I have devolved to 'showing us principles to live by' and am willing for the supernatural aspects. Willing does mean belief nor disbelief nor caring nor not caring. More like a suspension of criticality and judgement. I might liken it to watching a movie or reading a book. When 'magical realism'* comes up, I have to choose rejection of it as impossible or decide to accept for the time being because it is worth doing. The reason for this acceptance temporarily is to enjoy, feel comforted, have my consciousness expanded. .
I really like this ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.'
That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.
You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... but you still have to explain how and why Jesus could be more 'full of God' than anyone else has been before or since ...
Yes.
I should have added "that we know of".
I bet there have been, and will be 100s. But they didn't happen to become followed or known.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
But you've got no way of demonstrating that, Boogie. At least we have the Gospel accounts and the testimony of the Church down the ages ...
@Mudfrog - that C S Lewis sound-bite is one of the weakest apologias in the entire Lewis canon, I think.
It 'worked' on me when someone was 'witnessing' to me on a train back in the day - before my evangelical conversion - and after I'd 'got saved' I started to use it myself until I realised that it was easy to drive a coach-and-horses through it.
I don't base my belief on the trustworthiness of Christ's testimony about himself on that argument - nor the trustworthiness of the Church's witness to Christ either (which is all we have when it all boils down to it ...)
It's a snappy sound-bite but doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
It's an easy one to pull apart.
Of course, I know you're not relying on that argument alone - there's an aggregate of testimony and indeed personal experience to draw on as well as the standard apologetic arguments.
I was never convinced by any of the usual Christian Union level apologetics that I encountered as a GLE ... the Josh McDowell stuff, the 'Who Moved the Stone' and so on ... it's easy to ride a coach and horses through the lot of it.
But that's not the point.
Paschal's Wager too -- that will only take us so far.
Sure, there's 'data' and there are indications and hints, there are clues we can follow ... but I can't 'prove' that my trust in Christ as Lord and Saviour in the traditional creedal sense is any more robust than Boogie's trust in a Saviour who is almost but not quite, God ...
Yet I still believe.
At the risk of giving offence, Boogie's almost-but-not-quite holds no attraction for me whatsoever. What's the point?
To use the old adage, 'If he's not Lord of all, he's not Lord at all ...'
It doesn't diminish our humanity to believe in the Incarnation in the traditional way - rather it exalts and enhances it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Most of us here are likely to have doubts of various sorts. My faith is frankly puny.
However, one problem I have with demoting Jesus from the Godhead, as it were, is that it makes normal Christian (or at least Protestant) worship somewhat blasphemous, to say the least. Why sing all these songs about how divine and wonderful Jesus is? Why address prayers to him, if he's not God? Shouldn't God alone have the glory?
Islam would make a bit more sense, because Muslims can at least admire Jesus as a prophet, a man with divine blessing and an exemplary life, without getting the man/God balance confused....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Paschal's Wager has got to be one of the great typos, and quite relevant. The Easter gamble!
Jesus, for me, is everything I'd hope a person could be, so he represents an ideal of humanity and the idea that God (whatever God is) could 'fit' in a person. A religiously revolutionary concept.
He is also, the little we know about him, actually really interesting. Those parables are amazing existentialist speech acts, and his dealings with people somehow hit the perfect note, testing, reassuring, fathomlessly loving.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But you've got no way of demonstrating that, Boogie.
None at all.
But I don't need to, I'm not trying to convince or convert anyone - just to articulate what I have come to believe.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
I believe that Jesus was and is the one God of all creation. On most days, I have to ask myself if I really believe that, but so far the answer has always been "yes" with varying degrees of conviction. And I agree with Sebastian in Brideshead Revisited: I believe mostly because it is beautiful.
And even when my religious conviction is not so firm, I am fully convinced that it is good for me to try to live my life according to what he taught.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Banner Lady
Ship's Ensign
# 10505
|
Posted
Jesus is Who He says He is in the scriptures for me. It is intensely personal because at a time when I really, really needed to know whether all this Christian stuff was true or not, I had a 'Road to Damascus' experience. The Saviour entered my life, dispelled all doubt and I have been a humbly grateful Christ follower ever since.
The Church I struggle with, but with Jesus I do not. All I can say to you is rather than asking others who Jesus is, why not ask Him?
"Who are you, Lord?" is a great question to ask the One who began all this.
[ 16. August 2015, 19:45: Message edited by: Banner Lady ]
--------------------
Women in the church are not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be enjoyed.
Posts: 7080 | From: Canberra Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@SvitlanaV2 - it's not just Protestant worship - the Orthodox Liturgy couldn't be more explicit about Christ being God. I'm not so familiar with the RC liturgy but I'd imagine it's pretty explicit there too - and of course the title Mother of God for Mary is a Christological one .. and affirms the deity of Christ.
Otherwise, I agree with you - if Christ is simply a great prophet why not be a Muslim?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Originally posted by Boogie:
He was divine in the sense that he was so full of God's spirit (all that is good) as to do no wrong. He was the first and only person to be sinless and perfect in every way. Not because he was God but because he was full of God
This about nails it for me. As someone with a strong heartfelt belief in God, but unsure in my rational mind, I see Jesus as the perfect icon of the qualities we attribute to God, ie infinite love and mercy. People often ask me why I am such a devout church goer with all this doubt. My answer is that to me, Christianity has been a lifelong search for God, not a settled certainty. And one of the most important aspects of that is the imitation of Christ, however imperfectly we do it.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Most of us here are likely to have doubts of various sorts. My faith is frankly puny.
However, one problem I have with demoting Jesus from the Godhead, as it were, is that it makes normal Christian (or at least Protestant) worship somewhat blasphemous, to say the least. Why sing all these songs about how divine and wonderful Jesus is? Why address prayers to him, if he's not God? Shouldn't God alone have the glory?
I agree with your first line, and have often said my own faith doesn't amount to a handful of beans.
Not too sure I've consciously demoted Jesus in my mind, despite thinking the historical Jesus was on some Zen thing he'd acquired while spending time in the Essene desert community.
I can go to church week on week,(not that I do now), sing the hymns, recite the Creed and yet not feel fraudulent or blasphemous. Maybe there was a time when a clergy person would not welcome me while holding alternative views, not likely with today's shrinking attendance.
Whilst not being consciously aware of it, Jesus could actually be mentally evolving and promoted to a spiritual Godhead in the part of my mind that accommodates such matters. It's not something that can be forced, and trying to pin a person down and get them to declare -- Jesus, Son of God or not?-- can't be the way ahead for 21st Century Christianity TMM.
[ 16. August 2015, 21:18: Message edited by: rolyn ]
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I can go to church week on week,(not that I do now), sing the hymns, recite the Creed and yet not feel fraudulent or blasphemous. Maybe there was a time when a clergy person would not welcome me while holding alternative views, not likely with today's shrinking attendance.
Whilst not being consciously aware of it, Jesus could actually be mentally evolving and promoted to a spiritual Godhead in the part of my mind that accommodates such matters. It's not something that can be forced, and trying to pin a person down and get them to declare -- Jesus, Son of God or not?-- can't be the way ahead for 21st Century Christianity TMM.
It can't be forced, certainly. But it does suggest that what we do in church, the liturgies we recite and the words we sing, are largely about a shared culture and familiarity, and don't tie in closely with our faith as such.
Maybe all religion (or is it just Christianity?) turns into this sooner or later, but it partly explains why evangelism is so difficult in our age. If our religious rites no longer fit in with what we believe - or even what we wish we believed - then a lack of coherence will become apparent, in some people's minds. Not everyone will be at ease with this.
It'll definitely be interesting to see if and how our churches deal with this issue in the decades to come.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.'
That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse.
You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
This argument works for me precisely because I'm already inclined to thinking of Jesus as Lord, so the argument helps put meat on the bones, so to speak, fleshes out (pun unintended) why I believe it.
But like Gamaliel, I think it fails as an apologetic. It's not an argument I would use with anyone not already prone to thinking of Jesus as Lord. It's very much an argument of it's time-- when one could assume those three possibilities (liar, lunatic or Lord) are the only three viable options in anyone's mind. Today it falls as a false dichotomy (trichotomy?)-- there are other options that don't fall into those three categories, so that eliminating liar and lunatic doesn't automatically give us "Lord".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Well of course it doesn't hold every drop of water - but it's arguing from the point of view of what Jesus actually said:
He was either a liar - i.e. he knew it wasn't true.
Or he was a lunatic - i.e. he thought it was true.
Or he was Lord - i.e. it really was true!
I don't know what else he might have been thinking as a fourth option.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well of course it doesn't hold every drop of water - but it's arguing from the point of view of what Jesus actually said:
He was either a liar - i.e. he knew it wasn't true.
Or he was a lunatic - i.e. he thought it was true.
Or he was Lord - i.e. it really was true!
I don't know what else he might have been thinking as a fourth option.
It might be true in a sense that Lewis didn't appreciate. Jesus was "God" in a non-exclusive sense, a Hindu kind of sense -- a manifestation of God but not the only one. Or "God" in a sense of being divine in some unspecified way that the people of the day would understand, but we no longer understand because that culture has passed away. It's only if we think he is saying that he's precisely identical to Yahweh -- which is impossible, as the Trinity makes pains to point out -- that the trilemma holds.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The fourth option could be that he wanted to make us put in some serious theological effort to work it all out!
Maybe so. But it does make Christianity seem like a religion for intellectuals, with the rest of us just tagging along out of habit, or a vague sense of existential dread.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
A fifth option is that Jesus has been misquoted in the NT and/or that the accounts of his resurrection were the invention/mass delusion of a fanatical group of followers. Lewis' argument assumes the complete validity of the biblical text. I agree with him, but again, the argument won't work for anyone not already inclined to believe Jesus is Lord and that the NT is a reliable witness to his life and teachings.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Well of course it doesn't hold every drop of water - but it's arguing from the point of view of what Jesus actually said:
He was either a liar - i.e. he knew it wasn't true.
Or he was a lunatic - i.e. he thought it was true.
Or he was Lord - i.e. it really was true!
I don't know what else he might have been thinking as a fourth option.
Or he was legend - i.e., at least some of what was written about him were later accretions to what happened.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Mythology expresses the basic unstated foundational knowledge of a civilization or culture. Arguments over whether myths are true or false is entirely an inappropriate question. Myths express aspiration and try to explain. Can Jesus have been a man and also someone about whose life sprang up a series of myths? Of course. Do the myths (or stories if you prefer) have meaning? Do the stories inspire you? Do they lead to certain types of behaviour and thought? Then they work. They don't have to be true in the way the law of gravity is true. They merely have to have explanatory power.
The problem that ensues when people take myth and reify it (make it real and treat it as if it were actual fact) is that they distort it beyond its intent. The bible, creeds, appeal to the saintly and doctors of the church etc, is of limited or no help in understanding what and who Jesus is, seeing as it is composed of selected writings written down by people who didn't actually know him, people who never met him, and were several or many generations removed from him. The appeal to the authority and scripture fails for most of the post-Christian population. As soon as claims for magic and miracles are made, people look to more believable magic, and things that actually give answers. Christianity is losing people when it insists on the incredible as the acid test of a Christian and doesn't allow those who want to understand beauty and truth as mythological ideas, symbolic, not needing and not required to be true to have meaning.
I don't understand the fear of death that most of Christianity seems preoccupied with. That somehow we must live on in another existence, and pinning of the facilitation of this on to Jesus so much so that this has become the main preoccupation of the religion: how shall we live forever (or be saved or whatever). I think most people don't get into middle age and past it without gaining a different perspective: health scares, friends dying, seeing patterns of our youths repeated in our societal cycles.
At my present stage of my life, I have some I have come to understand myself as someone who really, really wants some things to be true that cannot be. I have been someone who wanted everything done according to the rules of romantic fiction: I think the Jesus story resembles romantic fiction.
[ 17. August 2015, 02:42: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
A fifth option is that Jesus has been misquoted in the NT and/or that the accounts of his resurrection were the invention/mass delusion of a fanatical group of followers. Lewis' argument assumes the complete validity of the biblical text. I agree with him, but again, the argument won't work for anyone not already inclined to believe Jesus is Lord and that the NT is a reliable witness to his life and teachings.
I vaguely recall hearing some argument that the writers of the gospels wouldn't have made stuff up, because as followers of Jesus' moral teachngs, they would know that lying to that degree is very wrong, and certainly wouldn't do so in the name of Jesus himself.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, my over-riding difficulty with the Lewis quote is that it assumes that Jesus was talking into a microphone at the BBC ...
That's not how the Gospels were written.
To be honest, I'm surprised at Lewis's apparent lack of sophistication at that point, as a literary and textual scholar ... but then, he was around before the dreaded days of Structuralism and Semiotics and so on ...
Like Cliffdweller, I agree with Lewis's conclusions, but not with the route he took to come to those conclusions ... at least not in that particular instance.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As for ancient historians 'making things up' or ordering things to suit their arguments - that happened all the time - there is no reason to doubt that the Gospel writers or Luke in Luke/Acts wouldn't be prone to the same thing ...
As an aside, one could argue that the whole Ananias and Sapphira incident is a conscious literary attempt to introduce ideas of judgement and so on into the New Israel - just as there were similar examples from Old Israel - as it were ...
That needn't imply that it wasn't based on some kind of historical occurrence ... and it does beg some additional questions too - about the extent to which the early Church had, by that stage, begun to differentiate itself from standard Judaism ...
Personally, I don't have an issue with 'myth' and legend when it comes to some of the NT accounts as well as the OT stories ... nor does it bother me particularly as to where one ends and t'other begins ... ie. the subtle segue point between 'myth' and history.
In fact, I'd suggest that we can't differentiate between the two in any ancient writings - and the Gospels are no exception.
Yes, this places me in an awkward balancing act position - but that's what we are presented with.
Do I believe in the deity of Christ? Yes. Do I believe in the resurrection? Yes.
Do I think these things are capable of being boiled down to some kind of journalistic or historical analysis/narrative? No ... I don't ... well - they are and they aren't. They can be to a certain extent - but we are still left with the mystery.
There is always the Mystery.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
A fifth option is that Jesus has been misquoted in the NT and/or that the accounts of his resurrection were the invention/mass delusion of a fanatical group of followers. Lewis' argument assumes the complete validity of the biblical text. I agree with him, but again, the argument won't work for anyone not already inclined to believe Jesus is Lord and that the NT is a reliable witness to his life and teachings.
Chose your post Cliffweller as you seem to be not quite so far from my position as the likes of Mudfrog. (Though partly responding to Gamaliel as well.)
This whole 'did the witnesses lie or suffer from mass delusion' is stating it all far too emotively from my point of view. As we now know pretty conclusively, humans are by nature a highly delusional species. Cognitive psychology has pretty conclusively shown this.
Human memory is very poor / selective. We frequently notice what we would like to be true and we then remember it with confirmation bias. Having the collective memory of a group of people frequently doesn't help as 'group think' is just as prone to cherry picking / distorting evidence.
So the whole 'first hand witnesses wouldn't lie' isn't tenable for me. What we remember even a week after an event is frequently already mythologised in some small but significant way.
I can think of a number of examples that I come across in day to day life where this happens - especially when strong positive or negative emotions are involved. A desperate group is particularly highly vulnerable to group think.
In short humans don't need to be fanatical or dishonest to get all sorts of things wrong.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
In short humans don't need to be fanatical or dishonest to get all sorts of things wrong.
I agree. But there is nothing wrong (in the moral sense) with what we read about Jesus. I simply don't (can't) believe the supernatural stuff any more.
But, in my view, that doesn't matter. Nothing is gained by believing the supernatural stuff.
[ 17. August 2015, 11:51: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Then how is it possible for a mere human to do nothing wrong?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I like your OP! I shall, of course, join in with a post or two asap!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But there is nothing wrong (in the moral sense) with what we read about Jesus. I simply don't (can't) believe the supernatural stuff any more.
But, in my view, that doesn't matter. Nothing is gained by believing the supernatural stuff.
I know we agree on this Boogie. However it seems quite clear that many people do gain something by the supernatural beliefs. I have located this in the fear of a final death and promise of being in heaven forever, which is the carrot. The stick, which seems to be going out of fashion, is hell and pain etc Am I wrong in this assumption: that it is fear of a final death that motivates the supernatural beliefs? The end of personal existence is unpalatable?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I simply don't (can't) believe the supernatural stuff any more.
But, in my view, that doesn't matter. Nothing is gained by believing the supernatural stuff.
There we part ways. In Orthodox Christology, one of the most important things about the Incarnation is that in himself Christ united the divine and human natures. Thereby uniting all of us to God and making us eligible for (capable of obtaining) eternal life.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I simply don't (can't) believe the supernatural stuff any more.
But, in my view, that doesn't matter. Nothing is gained by believing the supernatural stuff.
So do you agree with Thomas Jefferson, that the gospels could be improved upon by cutting out those sections we find tricky?
When looking at Jesus, I couldn't help but find the "Jesus of history/Jesus of faith" is a false divide and that to separate the two is a bit of a cop out that raises a whole host of other questions. For example, if Jesus wasn't in any way divine, was he not resurrected? If not, then where is hope?
I say this to put you down, but to prompt the questions (if you've not wrestled with them before).
I end up at a broadly orthodox understanding of Jesus, but I do not adopt the idea that Jesus' divinity is a starting point. It's a conclusion at the end of a long line of thought. That's why I don't like using the creeds (which were agonised over and represent a summation of thought) as a starting point or normative statement.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But there is nothing wrong (in the moral sense) with what we read about Jesus. I simply don't (can't) believe the supernatural stuff any more.
But, in my view, that doesn't matter. Nothing is gained by believing the supernatural stuff.
I know we agree on this Boogie. However it seems quite clear that many people do gain something by the supernatural beliefs. I have located this in the fear of a final death and promise of being in heaven forever, which is the carrot. The stick, which seems to be going out of fashion, is hell and pain etc Am I wrong in this assumption: that it is fear of a final death that motivates the supernatural beliefs? The end of personal existence is unpalatable?
Obviously, that's the motivation for some, possibly many. But many of us believe in some version of universal salvation, so "fear of death" is not the stick. I suppose you could say the comfort of believing in the afterlife is a carrot of sorts. But really, if we (some Christians) believe in universal salvation, this reductionistic explanation is not sufficient to explain why we continue to go to church or love our enemies (to the extent we actually do those things, of course). Even beyond the issue of universal salvation (which obviously not all Christians believe) I think you're offering too simplistic an explanation for something that has moved millions of believers over the centuries. (And yes, the same could be said of believers of other religions). Human motivation/ spirituality is far too complex to be reduced to simply "fear of death."
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Are you sure everybody 'fears death'? I for one do not regard eternal life as a 'carrot'. I would be quite happy with annihilation/obliteration/eternal sleep, however you want to phrase it.
If you don't believe in a creator God, one who takes an interest in all human beings, and consider that this life is all there is, then I don't think eternal life comes into it.
Of course, you then start tripping over Judgement, sin, just desserts and why bother with a good life?
Which rather brings us back to is there a God, and if there is, then where does Jesus come into it?
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
In the thread 'God does not go where he is not wanted' various people, like SusanDoris, Boogie, Macrina, and rolyn have expressed views that are not what you might call received Christian belief. There are doubtless others, like me, who have nodded, and said 'that's just what I think' and not posted anything.
Could I ask you all, where do you put Jesus in your beliefs? Was/is he divine, a prophet, a made-up story, or one in the long line of theologically-minded men, within every belief system man has ever devised?
When I was old enough to think for myself, God was a truth and Jesus was called the ‘Son of God’, but was an ordinary good person with sensible ideas on how to live – do as you would be done by, etc. Virgin birth, resurrection, supposed miracles - were obviously not possible, actual happenings but illustrative stories - from the two-volume World of Wonder I learnt and assimilated up-to-date facts of history, evolution, astronomy and space. The idea of fulfilling prophercies and the effects of political situations in Jesus' time did not come into discussions within the family, the Church or anywhere else. The idea of heaven (not hell – there was obviously no such thing), God moving in mysterious ways, God helping those who help themselves, were aphorisms that were part of the background of life, unchallenged because it was the height of bad manners to raise the subject of religion. The word 'divine'? Well, everyone knew what it meant, but it had no prominence that I recall, except in connection with film drama!
As I tend to mention here and there ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ,it is a very long time since the last vestiges of my belief in God evaporated.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I am not clear on universal salvation making it different. It's still about having something after the current life, life after death.
Must there be salvation of any kind? Is Jesus is only worth it if there is some form of salvation?
My take is that there might or might not be, and it is not necessary to know right now. It is enough to follow.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
