|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christian Orthodoxy
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
All very laudable - except there's nothing unique about Jesus' ethical teaching when compared to those of any other rabbi, sage, buddha, guru, sadhu, druid etc. etc. Why does Jesus stand out?
On the one hand, I agree. If Jesus got close to the best way to live, it is unsurprising that other sages have taught similar things - although with different nuances, for different times, cultures and conditions - after all, we are all human, and "do unto others" is the basic rule which makes human society possible. Working this out as an on-going process.
On the other hand, Jesus is actually quite inverting and radical. Firstly, he says that all the morality is fine, but that it shouldn't become an end in itself - when we lose sight of humanity and fraternity, and become legalistic, we do more harm than good. Secondly, he introduces grace - the undeserved favour, the living magnanimously and with lavish kindness - this transforms the reciprocal moralities of other teachers and makes it truly liberating.
I'm not a "Jesus-only"; I'm a "Jesus-first". There are other sages, prophets and philosophers in the pantheon of human thought and spirituality from whom we also have much to learn, but of all of them, Jesus has the highest place of honour.
quote:
Unless he's the Son of God?
What's that got to do with anything? His teachings stand on their own merits, not on any ludicrous pretence to divinity.
quote:
And, the following of the teachings of a Jewish rabbi may amount to some sound ethical instruction, but it's not Christianity. Christianity says it's possible to have a living, personal relationship with that Jewish rabbi, who is alive now.
But it that's Christianity, Christianity has very little to do with Jesus Christ.
quote:
And I feel that a part of making that relationship a good one is believing the right things about that rabbi - including that he's fully divine, and alive now.
Jesus is dead, like Moses, Buddha, Socrates and all the other great prophets. But I know how you feel. Sometimes, when making an active choice to follow Jesus' example and his teaching in a difficult situation, one can imagine that it's almost like he's still alive in one's mind, a voice raised from the dead page and living in our consciousness. One can have something like a "relationship" with the idea of a fictional character - why else would people cry at sad stories? - so it is possible for something similar to develop with respect to a great historical figure, especially if you are regularly reading and applying what the received texts claim to be "his words".
A preacher friend of mine once put the resurrection myth in these terms: when the disciples gathered after the crucifixion to eat together, to tell stories about Jesus, to repeat what they had learnt, and to get ready to start the process of making his words into deeds in the transformation and redemption of the world, it felt almost as if he were alive with them, as if, through them, he had been "resurrected".
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Jesus is dead, like Moses, Buddha, Socrates and all the other great prophets.
Well, maybe so. Or maybe not. We could debate whether a bodily resurrection happened or not. That would be a different thread.
But people who believe that Jesus is dead aren't Christians. They may have a very real spirituality, a real faith, profound ethical understanding and love for their fellow humans. They may just end up as some of the nicest people in Hell. They aren't Christians.
Christians believe, inter alia that Jesus Christ is alive.
Saying 'a Christian who doesn't believe in Christ' is like saying 'a triangle that has five sides' or 'a married bachelor'.
I don't propose here to re-debate much of what had already been said on this thread. And I don't need to, given what John's prologue says about Jesus.
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
Christians believe, inter alia that Jesus Christ is alive.
Nah. You're mistaken. Happens to us all.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
Unless he's the Son of God?
What's that got to do with anything? His teachings stand on their own merits, not on any ludicrous pretence to divinity.
Which teachings do you mean? "I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me"? "Unless you eat of the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life within you"? "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent"?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Via Media
Shipmate
# 16087
|
Posted
If Jesus was/is not divine -- just an ethical teacher -- I would probably have to give Socrates, Zeno, or even Epicurus, far greater rank of honour. This Jesus of Nazareth likely wouldn't be a footnote in the history books if his followers did not believe him to be divine. The mere 'moral philosophy' which we find in the Gospel narratives frankly doesn't hold a candle to the Platonic-Aristotelian, Epicurean, Stoic, Pyrrhonian and Academic Skeptic, and Neoplatonist moral systems.
Really, what's so great about it? How different or 'radical' is it really?
--------------------
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Most of the time, eh?
Posts: 65 | From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
If Jesus was/is not divine -- just an ethical teacher -- I would probably have to give Socrates, Zeno, or even Epicurus, far greater rank of honour. This Jesus of Nazareth likely wouldn't be a footnote in the history books if his followers did not believe him to be divine. The mere 'moral philosophy' which we find in the Gospel narratives frankly doesn't hold a candle to the Platonic-Aristotelian, Epicurean, Stoic, Pyrrhonian and Academic Skeptic, and Neoplatonist moral systems.
Really, what's so great about it? How different or 'radical' is it really?
Another point is that the Historical Jesus did not write anything done (or at least nothing that has survived). What we have is the witness of early Christian communities which:
1) had a high Christology (Philippians 2:5-11 is considered a very early Christian hymn, and already in the first century, we find the faith community having a preliminary understanding of the Son of God being pre-existent)
2) Ascribed certain divine titles that the Romans applied to the Emperor, to Jesus Christ. Jesus is given the title of Lord, Son of God, Son of Man, etc. Some scholars point out that the early Christians were reluctant to call Jesus "God". Paul reserves "God" to the Father and "Lord" to Jesus. So a fully-fledged concept of the divinity of Christ, and the Son being equal to the Father, was a later development of the Church. However, the early Christians did not regard Jesus just as a teacher and they certainly believed that he rose from the dead.
If he didn't rise from the dead, then Jesus would have gone the way of other messianic pretenders and have been lost to history. People do not follow dead messiahs, especially crucified ones.
Any attempt to separate Jesus "the divine figure" and Jesus "teacher" is impossible. The teachings of Jesus as we have them now in the Gospels are filtered through a faith tradition that ascribed to Jesus divine titles and honours. As well, the New Testament no doubt contains material that reaches to the Historical Jesus, but it also contains sayings and teachings that reflects the post-Resurrection Church. The underlying belief is that the risen Jesus is the active presence in the Church, his Body, continuing speaking wisdom and direction to his followers.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
I think Via Media has made a good point about the creeds.
As for the idea that Islam is a separate religion in its own right, rather than a form of Christian heresy - I think it's stretching a point to say that the idea didn't surface until the 20th century. However, it certainly existed in the middle ages.
But is there a history of Muslims ever considering themselves to be Christians?
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
In that case, Christianity is a mockery and a travesty of Jesus Christ.
It's nothing more than a blasphemous concoction of cannibalistic mystery-cult pseudo-Egyptian idol-worship, and deserves about as much respect as Scientology or Satanism.
And so what if it is? I don't see how that helps us to define "orthodoxy".
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
RadicalWhig and Zach are not (on this thread) arguing about the proposition "Jesus Christ was God incarnate" - which is a proposition of fact - but merely over whether RadicalWhig can be called a Christian, which is a dispute over terminology.
Agreed. I also think we need to make a distinction between what is "Christian orthodox" as an intellectual belief system, and what it means to say that a particular person or organisation is "Christian".
Just because a particular belief system might be "Christian orthodox", does it automatically follow that a person who believes in those doctrines is themselves a "Christian"? And does it automatically follow that a person who does not believe them is not a Christian?
If so, then how do we ascertain what a person believes? Given that people don't normally spend their entire waking lives reciting the Creeds back to back, like a tape on loop, it's not unreasonable to suppose that a person can be thought of as a "Christian", even if they don't constantly profess the Creeds. So perhaps a person's status as "Christian" hangs upon reciting the creeds with a certain specified minimum frequency.
But if that's really the case - then what's the point of baptism?
To what extent is orthodoxy and baptism related?
If it's necessary for a person to profess orthodox belief before they get baptised, then what happens if they change their mind about it later on? Do they cease to be a Christian? Is their baptism nullified? If so, what happens if they change their minds twice - first against it, and then back round in support of it again? Is the validity of the previously nullified baptism reinstated - or does the believer have to get a second baptism?
What happens if you get a baptism in one church - but then you join a second church, which does not recognise the validity of the first church's baptism, and you get baptised again? What if you are baptised once, and then you lie and pretend that you haven't been baptised, in order to get a second baptism? Do any of these things nullify your first baptism?
What if you are baptised as a Christian one day - but then later on, you are baptised into a neo-pagan reconstruction of ancient Isis worship? Does this nullify your Christian baptism?
The question of whether a particular person, family or organisation can be thought of as "Christian" is complicated enough as it is, before we even start to address the question of the definition of "orthodox belief".
It may be that the question of how we define orthodox belief affects how we decide who is, and who isn't, a Christian - but I don't think the question of how we decide who is, and who isn't, a Christian, really affects the question of how we define orthodox belief.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Anglican-Brat posted
"1) had a high Christology (Philippians 2:5-11 is considered a very early Christian hymn, and already in the first century, we find the faith community having a preliminary understanding of the Son of God being pre-existent)"
Not necessarily.
The wording of this hymn could equally well refer back to Adam "who grasped at equality with God" as it does to a pre-existent Divine Redeemer.
And Paul, quoting an early Christology, spoke of Jesus as having been designated Son of God by virtue of the resurrection. (Romans 1)
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Any attempt to separate Jesus "the divine figure" and Jesus "teacher" is impossible. The teachings of Jesus as we have them now in the Gospels are filtered through a faith tradition that ascribed to Jesus divine titles and honours. As well, the New Testament no doubt contains material that reaches to the Historical Jesus, but it also contains sayings and teachings that reflects the post-Resurrection Church. The underlying belief is that the risen Jesus is the active presence in the Church, his Body, continuing speaking wisdom and direction to his followers.
(Also in response to Mousethief's earlier point about "what are the teachings of Jesus).
These are real problems. Fortunately, we have all the tools of reason, experience, and conscience - applied through the study of mythology, comparative religion, anthropology, and other branches of knowledge - to guide us, and to help us separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. The Jefferson Bible is a good starting point, I think.
Also, even if we had the exact words of Jesus, that would not make them absolutely authoritative. We'd still have to separate out that which was of Jesus' place, time and culture, from that which has continuing resonance today. For example, there is no way that Jesus could have known what we know today about the origins and nature of the universe, and his idea of God - although very different from the Old Testament God - is more personal and theistic than I'd be happy with today. Yet there is no incompatibility between Jesus' teaching and the sort of Tillich Ground of Being God.
Personally, I believe that the key teaching of Jesus is that what he called "the Kingdom of God" is at hand: that there is a way to live which stands against Caesar, the temple priests, the money changers, the Pharisees, and all the hatred, abuse, oppression, fear, and competition of the world, and which substitutes for it a grace-based ethic of love, reconcilation, forgiveness, renewal. That, to my mind, is the "right belief", the "orthodoxy" of the true gospel.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Via Media
Shipmate
# 16087
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Personally, I believe that the key teaching of Jesus is that what he called "the Kingdom of God" is at hand: that there is a way to live which stands against Caesar, the temple priests, the money changers, the Pharisees, and all the hatred, abuse, oppression, fear, and competition of the world, and which substitutes for it a grace-based ethic of love, reconcilation, forgiveness, renewal. That, to my mind, is the "right belief", the "orthodoxy" of the true gospel.
Virtually every major moral philosopher in the Greco-Roman world offered a way of living starkly opposed to the ethic of 'the world' -- of the rulers, and of the vast majority of people, of society. Again, there is really nothing special about what you say Jesus' doctrine was. Plato's Socrates' ethical dialectic and doctrine is more thorough, forceful and well-argued/convincing. Your "true gospel" was preached and practiced long before JC came on the scene; nobody needed him to recycle anything. (And Socrates was martyred by 'the world' for his trouble as well, on trumped-up charges of corrupting the youth and atheism.)
I just don't get your particular attachment to this Jesus character and his philosophy, when greener, fresher pastures from the mouths of more deserving prophets are to be had.
[ 01. January 2011, 21:17: Message edited by: Via Media ]
--------------------
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Most of the time, eh?
Posts: 65 | From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
I still feel we're kinda getting away from the point about what is "orthodoxy". I mean ...
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
If he didn't rise from the dead, then Jesus would have gone the way of other messianic pretenders and have been lost to history. People do not follow dead messiahs, especially crucified ones.
Not even King Arthur?
This seems to strike me as a bit of a misunderstanding of the nature of messianic expectation. The whole point of expecting a messiah to come in the future is that the world is recognised as being beset by pain, suffering, sin and death, and other literal or metaphorical monsters and dragons, including Satan. Legendary kings and heroes have killed some of the enemies and monsters in the past - but their work is only partially complete. So, one day, one of them will come back and finish their work, the final Boss Monster (Satan) will be defeated, and the heavens and earth will be renewed.
Has Jesus already done this? Funnily enough, no he hasn't. Indeed, the idea that Jesus himself will come back in the future is itself an important component of orthodox Christian belief. So it seems to me that the only real difference Jesus made - assuming he ever existed at all - is that he has modified the Jewish messianic expectation of the return of the line of David, and replaced it with a slightly more specific Christian messianic expectation of the return of Jesus, who, in addition to being Jesus, is also of the line of David.
Whoever comes to save us in the future, whether it be Jesus or another son of David, or even King Arthur, I can't honestly see that it makes much odds either way. However, I think you'll be very hard pressed to find anyone who describes themselves as a Christian who seriously believes that the New Jerusalem, as described at the end of Revelation, has already been and gone.
Course, having said that, I suspect there was a time when Constantine's edict of toleration was passed off as the arrival of the New Jerusalem. Indeed, I highly suspect that people tried to make out that Constantine's reign was the thing that the legendary arena martyrs under Diocletian had died for. They died because they believed in a prophecy for the future - and that prophecy had now come true. In all honesty, I suspect that the martyrdoms under Diocletian may have been exaggerated for that purpose.
That's not to say that there weren't any martyrs at all, though. But how do we decide who is and who isn't a martyr anyway, given the fact that all mortal men eventually die of something?
Maybe a few of the people who are called Christian martyrs really were Christian martyrs. But they might not all have been Christian. Perhaps some were Christian, but were sentenced to death for reasons unrelated to their religious affiliation. Perhaps some were pagans! Perhaps some were martyrs for Isis, and were only called Christian martyrs later on - after all, if emperors got upset on being told that they're not true gods on the grounds that Christ is the only true god, then presumably they'd have felt the same way about being told that the only true gods are Isis and Osiris.
Perhaps some "martyrs" couldn't care less about religious beliefs, and just wanted to ape the glory of former gladiator arena celebrities. Maybe one or two of them thought they might even be able to defeat the beasts and escape. And perhaps a good many of the legendary martyrs never even existed in the first place. Who can say?
Nevertheless, it's very convenient for an emperor to be able to claim that lots of heroes have bravely died for the "freedom" that his subjects now "enjoy". Especially if the emperor is able to accuse those who protest against his rule of being disrespectful to the memory of those heroes. You co-opt the stories of real dead warriors to your rule if you can get away with it - but you just make them up out of thin air if you can't.
But if the emperor ever did manage to convince people that the New Jerusalem was already here, it seems as though the belief didn't last very long. A few decades later, and Christianity reverted back to the prior messianic expectation that it held before Constantine's edict - albeit perhaps slightly modified by St Augustine's tendency to treat much of the Apocalypse (though not all of it) as an allegory. It seems to me that this has played a large part in defining what has been thought of as "orthodoxy" ever since.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Personally, I believe that the key teaching of Jesus is that what he called "the Kingdom of God" is at hand: that there is a way to live which stands against Caesar, the temple priests, the money changers, the Pharisees, and all the hatred, abuse, oppression, fear, and competition of the world, and which substitutes for it a grace-based ethic of love, reconcilation, forgiveness, renewal. That, to my mind, is the "right belief", the "orthodoxy" of the true gospel.
That may be - but I think we need to make a distinction between what has been orthodoxy, and what we think should be orthodoxy. It sounds to me that you are arguing about what you think should be orthodoxy, as opposed to using the perspective of historical analysis to figure out what has been thought of as "orthodoxy" in the past. Let's not muddle the two things up.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
So, what you are saying is, that the man you think is god was actually a bit lame? Not much of a god, is it?
Anyway, to answer the question, I've learnt much from the Buddha, from Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero and Socrates, but following Jesus has changed and transformed me, and my life and relationships, more than any other philosopher, guru, prophet or sage. (I'm speaking here only on the personal and ethical level, and in terms of character and personality.)
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
[X-posted; reply to via media]
And, for what it's worth, the building of the "New Jerusalem" is the purpose of christianity; it's the crucial thing we are all called to do, as followers of Jesus - bringing in what he called the "kingdom of god" through love, fraternity, forgiveness etc.
[ 01. January 2011, 21:28: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Via Media
Shipmate
# 16087
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So, what you are saying is, that the man you think is god was actually a bit lame? Not much of a god, is it?
Well, no. What makes Him special to me is that He is God Incarnate, Who paid for my sin on the Cross.
--------------------
In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Most of the time, eh?
Posts: 65 | From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The radical message of Jesus' ethics is that it's based on love. There's no sense that morality is a transaction whereby if you fulfil your side of the bargain you'll be all right, any more than friendship is a contract whereby your friend's support is contingent on you fulfilling certain criteria.
This means that on the one hand you can never absolutely fall away from goodness, because there's no sense of triggering a penalty clause that invalidates the whole deal - and on the other hand, you can't just do the minimum of good works to comply with the bargain and then say "My work is done: the rest of the time is my own."
Honestly, I can say the Nicene Creed without crossing my fingers or doing mental contortions, but if I ever came to doubt it, the moral teaching of Christ would remind me that there's something worthwhile in Christianity.
Tbh I don't think Plato says very much about morality at all, and although Aristotle says a lot about the mechanics of the good life, I think Jesus is a lot better at expressing the point of it.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So, what you are saying is, that the man you think is god was actually a bit lame? Not much of a god, is it?
I never thought I'd agree with RadicalWhig on this kind of thread, but I do now. There's something slightly surreal about watching "orthodox" Christians attacking the founder of our religion.
I blame C.S. Lewis.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
There's something slightly surreal about watching "orthodox" Christians attacking the founder of our religion.
It's not attacking Jesus to say that his moral teachings were more or less precisely in line with first century near eastern understandings of the Torah and messianic thought. Saying he was unoriginal in that regard is a mere statement of fact; He is the God of the prophets after all.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Via Media:
If Jesus was/is not divine -- just an ethical teacher -- I would probably have to give Socrates, Zeno, or even Epicurus, far greater rank of honour. This Jesus of Nazareth likely wouldn't be a footnote in the history books if his followers did not believe him to be divine. The mere 'moral philosophy' which we find in the Gospel narratives frankly doesn't hold a candle to the Platonic-Aristotelian, Epicurean, Stoic, Pyrrhonian and Academic Skeptic, and Neoplatonist moral systems.
Really, what's so great about it? How different or 'radical' is it really?
I'd take the opposite stance. What's so special about divine people? Ancient history is littered with them.
You can start with the Roman Emperors of Jesus' time...
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Indeed. Myths of incarnated gods are ten-a-penny. So are ghost stories and fairy-tales. Gods who die, resurrect, or in some way sacrifice themselves for their people are also pretty common throughout the ancient world - and not just in Egypt and the Near East.
Making up stories is what we do: we are big-brained social primates with over-active imaginations and a need to rationalise, bond, so we find meaning through imaginative play, stories etc.
For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline) is fine as a myth; I can see a certain message in the story, a metaphor of death and rebirth, passion and sacrifice, that can be applied to our own lives in all sorts of ways. But it's when people insist that it must be true - that it's not myth but fact - that I think they've lost all contact with reality. They are no longer following the way and teaching of Jesus, but fetishising him and turning him into an idol. This rot set in very early, even within a few decades or so of Jesus' death.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Anyway, to answer the question, I've learnt much from the Buddha, from Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero and Socrates, but following Jesus has changed and transformed me, and my life and relationships, more than any other philosopher, guru, prophet or sage. (I'm speaking here only on the personal and ethical level, and in terms of character and personality.)
You need to be careful about saying that sort of thing; people might call you to account over it! But personally, I reckon it's better to keep these kinds of discussions non-personal.
If we're going to talk about how Jesus has changed the life of anyone, it's better to talk about how he has changed the lives of particular named celebrities, or the nations and cultures of the past that we read about in the history books. That's something that can be argued about from both sides on an internet discussion forum, without anyone having to corroborate it with personal details from their own lives.
We cannot do that with the idea that Jesus has changed our own lives. I'm not in a position to be able to size up whether Jesus really has changed the life of RadicalWhig or not, and I can't accept that he has merely on RadicalWhig's say-so. And there's nothing that RadicalWhig can say about his own life that would convince me otherwise, since I don't know enough about RadicalWhig in order to know whether he's telling the truth or not. If we want to get into debates about whether Jesus has changed anyone's life or not, it's got to be about people for whom there is a widespread level of common public knowledge.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So, what you are saying is, that the man you think is god was actually a bit lame? Not much of a god, is it?
Being a good teacher does not make you a god.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I never thought I'd agree with RadicalWhig on this kind of thread, but I do now. There's something slightly surreal about watching "orthodox" Christians attacking the founder of our religion.
I don't think it's attacking Jesus to say he didn't come up with very much original.
It seems to me that some people have fallen into the fallacy of thinking that the teachings of Jesus stand on their own merit, as though they would be equally true even if they had been first taught by someone other than Jesus - when in fact they only gave those teachings credit in the first place because it was Jesus, and not someone else, who taught them.
I suspect this has come about partly as a result of playing the teachings of Paul off against the teachings of Jesus. Some people simplistically assume that since Jesus is supposed to be the central bloke in "Christianity", it therefore follows that if they're ever less than happy with the teachings of Paul - or the creeds - then it's okay to say that the authority of the teachings of Jesus trumps the authority of Paul and the creeds.
It's okay to say that the authority of the teachings of Jesus trumps the authority of the teachings of Paul, if that's what you really believe. But it's no good trying to argue that this somehow means that the teachings of Jesus somehow stand on their own merit, even if Jesus was not the son of God, and wasn't of the line of David, and was not born of a virgin, and performed no miracles, and did not die and rise again, and did not have any special status in Christianity for any other reason. Because you'll become unstuck!
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline) is fine as a myth; I can see a certain message in the story, a metaphor of death and rebirth, passion and sacrifice, that can be applied to our own lives in all sorts of ways. But it's when people insist that it must be true - that it's not myth but fact - that I think they've lost all contact with reality. They are no longer following the way and teaching of Jesus, but fetishising him and turning him into an idol. This rot set in very early, even within a few decades or so of Jesus' death.
That strikes me as pot calling kettle black reasoning. How is the idea that there's something inherently special about the teachings of Jesus not a form of idolisation?
I'm with Via Media on this one.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Indeed. Myths of incarnated gods are ten-a-penny. So are ghost stories and fairy-tales. Gods who die, resurrect, or in some way sacrifice themselves for their people are also pretty common throughout the ancient world - and not just in Egypt and the Near East.
Making up stories is what we do: we are big-brained social primates with over-active imaginations and a need to rationalise, bond, so we find meaning through imaginative play, stories etc.
For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline) is fine as a myth; I can see a certain message in the story, a metaphor of death and rebirth, passion and sacrifice, that can be applied to our own lives in all sorts of ways. But it's when people insist that it must be true - that it's not myth but fact - that I think they've lost all contact with reality. They are no longer following the way and teaching of Jesus, but fetishising him and turning him into an idol. This rot set in very early, even within a few decades or so of Jesus' death.
The issue isn't that the Church "ignores" the historical Jesus, it is that it does not simply equate the historical Jesus to the true Christ. As well, we all know that scholars, both secular and religious, disagree on the exact details of the historical Jesus, was he an eschatological prophet heralding the end of the world or was he a wisdom sage pontificating pearls of wisdom? Was he political, in that his message was definitely anti-imperial?
Albert Schweitzer, hardly a raging fundamentalist, argued that historical Jesus research by in large reflected the bias of the scholars. You make up a historical Jesus out of your own image. The Church takes it one step further, by stating that the risen Christ still speaks through the testimony of his apostolic community that emerged after his death and resurrection. The church is Christ's Body, and is now the means for accomplishing his mission. Because of this belief, I do not privilege the historical Jesus over the risen Christ in terms of matter of faith. For me, the historical Jesus is not the same as the true Jesus.
But then I believe in the Resurrection, and thus I believe in a living and risen Lord who speaks through his apostolic community both then and now. "Why seek ye the living among the dead", Jesus is not a dead teacher in the past, but is a living presence, risen and in glory right now, working through his church.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Anyway, to answer the question, I've learnt much from the Buddha, from Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero and Socrates, but following Jesus has changed and transformed me, and my life and relationships, more than any other philosopher, guru, prophet or sage. (I'm speaking here only on the personal and ethical level, and in terms of character and personality.)
You need to be careful about saying that sort of thing; people might call you to account over it! But personally, I reckon it's better to keep these kinds of discussions non-personal.
I can't vouch for anyone else. I also know I cannot prove it to you, since I am, to you, just a series of digital pixels of light and darkness on a screen. However, I know my testimony, and I can personally testify to the power and the goodness of following Jesus' teachings. I'll argue passionately for what's good in Cicero, or try to adopt a Socratic style of questioning with my students, or try to see problematic days with the calmness of Seneca, but Jesus is the one who has taught me how to love, how to forgive, how to turn darkness into light, how to build up rather than to destroy - and that's why I continue to follow his teachings. Ultimately, I know I'm a better person for it.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
So, what you are saying is, that the man you think is god was actually a bit lame? Not much of a god, is it?
Being a good teacher does not make you a god.
Err, either you are misunderstanding me, or I am misunderstanding you; I think we are agreeing. Jesus was a good teacher - a most excellent teacher and example - but not god.
quote:
It seems to me that some people have fallen into the fallacy of thinking that the teachings of Jesus stand on their own merit, as though they would be equally true even if they had been first taught by someone other than Jesus
Yes. That's exactly what I am saying. The Socratic method would still have its uses, even if Socrates never existed and Plato made the whole thing up. There would still be much wisdom in the written meditations of Marcus Aurelius, even if he had never been a Roman emperor. It's not who they are that counts, its what value the writings, teachings, principles have.
quote:
when in fact they only gave those teachings credit in the first place because it was Jesus, and not someone else, who taught them.
But that's not the case, is it? If I'd thought the teachings of Mohammed were superior, I'd have become a Muslim. I became a Christian only because of the teachings of Jesus, and because they seemed to offer the hope of a way out of some of the destructive aspects of humanity. My aim is to end man's inhumanity to man and to promote living well together; religion is good in so much as it supports, and does not detract from, that aim. Jesus' teachings, in my own personal and unverifiable experience, really do offer the most excellent way, the most fundamental truth, and the liberating, abundant life.
quote:
I suspect this has come about partly as a result of playing the teachings of Paul off against the teachings of Jesus. Some people simplistically assume that since Jesus is supposed to be the central bloke in "Christianity", it therefore follows that if they're ever less than happy with the teachings of Paul - or the creeds - then it's okay to say that the authority of the teachings of Jesus trumps the authority of Paul and the creeds.
Err, yes. There's good stuff in Paul, don't get me wrong. Some of it is very helpful. But it's his own gloss and his own very distorted take on Jesus - whom he never even met - and he needs to be read through that critical lens.
quote:
It's okay to say that the authority of the teachings of Jesus trumps the authority of the teachings of Paul, if that's what you really believe.
Thank you.
quote:
But it's no good trying to argue that this somehow means that the teachings of Jesus somehow stand on their own merit, even if Jesus was not the son of God, and wasn't of the line of David, and was not born of a virgin, and performed no miracles, and did not die and rise again, and did not have any special status in Christianity for any other reason. Because you'll become unstuck!
Why is it no good? Why will I become unstuck? This doesn't make any sense. They teachings DO stand on their own merit, and made-up myths about being the son of God, born of a virgin, rising again etc do not detract from that.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline) is fine as a myth; I can see a certain message in the story, a metaphor of death and rebirth, passion and sacrifice, that can be applied to our own lives in all sorts of ways. But it's when people insist that it must be true - that it's not myth but fact - that I think they've lost all contact with reality. They are no longer following the way and teaching of Jesus, but fetishising him and turning him into an idol. This rot set in very early, even within a few decades or so of Jesus' death.
That strikes me as pot calling kettle black reasoning. How is the idea that there's something inherently special about the teachings of Jesus not a form of idolisation?
Hopefully I've already made that clear. Jesus was a great man; a bold, humane, and a man of the people, who stood at the head of the line of Jewish prophets in castigating the hypocrisy and pretensions of power and standing up for humanity against oppression; he was the leader of a social movement, a revolutionary, an inspiration and a challenge. I have followed that inspiration and accepted that challenge, and in so doing I am participating in the revolution, letting myself be liberated and transformed in order to transform and liberate the world. I have the utmost respect for - even a sort of love for - Jesus. I've very glad that he lived and I'm very glad that his message is still at work in my life and in the world. But he's not god. I don't idolise him. Worship is for god alone - (and, as Jesus himself hinted, the God Who Might Actually Exist is far greater than the petty, jealous figment of human imagination described in the OT).
[ 02. January 2011, 14:55: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline)
I think this is actually the problem of the creeds. There is nothing of his life and teachings in them.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I can see a certain message in the story, a metaphor of death and rebirth, passion and sacrifice, that can be applied to our own lives in all sorts of ways. But it's when people insist that it must be true - that it's not myth but fact - that I think they've lost all contact with reality.
This is where we part ways RadicalWhig.
I believe in the resurrection. I believe Jesus is present today.
But I believe it because I've experienced it. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The issue isn't that the Church "ignores" the historical Jesus, it is that it does not simply equate the historical Jesus to the true Christ.
Surely this is heresy Anglican_Brat!!! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Think about what you've just written.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Albert Schweitzer, hardly a raging fundamentalist, argued that historical Jesus research by in large reflected the bias of the scholars. You make up a historical Jesus out of your own image. The Church takes it one step further, by stating that the risen Christ still speaks through the testimony of his apostolic community that emerged after his death and resurrection. The church is Christ's Body, and is now the means for accomplishing his mission.
Anglican_Brat. Without the historical Jesus, the "Church" which is Christ's continuing body, makes Jesus in its image.
You have the Spirit, but you have to have the background to translate the spirit into the here and now.
Otherwise, you, me and the church can just walk around and say "Jesus told me so!"
His life and his teachings and his reactions to his surroundings during his lifetime give us that yardstick of separating fact from fiction.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The issue isn't that the Church "ignores" the historical Jesus, it is that it does not simply equate the historical Jesus to the true Christ. As well, we all know that scholars, both secular and religious, disagree on the exact details of the historical Jesus, was he an eschatological prophet heralding the end of the world or was he a wisdom sage pontificating pearls of wisdom? Was he political, in that his message was definitely anti-imperial?
Good point. Trying to get back to the question of what is and what isn't "orthodoxy", traditional creeds don't seem to specify that you hold one of these beliefs about historical Jesus over another.
But this is a point which I suspect is lost on a lot of people on the fringes of Christianity, whose main experience of Christian dogma is the scripted apologetics of denominations that tend towards millenarianism, and narrowly literal views of the interpretation of prophecy. To those apologists, it would seem ridiculous to suggest that you can pin your hope on a future world renewal, even if you don't think Jesus ever actually existed in the first place; as far as they're concerned, the hope for the future hangs on the historicity of the past.
Even orthodox Christianity seems to specify a minimum level of historical understanding of Jesus. "By the power of the Holy Spirit, he became Incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man". How can you sensibly interpret that any way other than historically?
And "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end." Not - "He has already come in glory, he is already judging the living and the dead, and his kingdom is already having no end." - or still less "his kingdom had no end." So much for realised eschatology, then.
Come to think of it - I suspect that realised eschatology has become incredibly popular. A belief in realised eschatology motivates people to humiliate modern-day apocalyptic prophets who set dates and get it wrong. People run screaming from Jim Jones and David Koresh, and they naturally think that realised eschatology somehow solves the problems posed by Jones and Koresh. I suspect the adherents of realised eschatology would be less than keen to admit that parts of the orthodox creeds flatly deny it.
Can anyone comment on how widespread the belief in realised eschatology is these days? Is it still the exception in mainstream Christianity, or has it now become the norm?
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Can anyone comment on how widespread the belief in realised eschatology is these days? Is it still the exception in mainstream Christianity, or has it now become the norm?
The New Testament teaches a partially realised eschatology. Jesus set the Kingdom in motion.
It has begun but it isn't finished.
Now and not yet.
[ 02. January 2011, 15:16: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline)
I think this is actually the problem of the creeds. There is nothing of his life and teachings in them.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I can see a certain message in the story, a metaphor of death and rebirth, passion and sacrifice, that can be applied to our own lives in all sorts of ways. But it's when people insist that it must be true - that it's not myth but fact - that I think they've lost all contact with reality.
This is where we part ways RadicalWhig.
I believe in the resurrection. I believe Jesus is present today.
But I believe it because I've experienced it.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The issue isn't that the Church "ignores" the historical Jesus, it is that it does not simply equate the historical Jesus to the true Christ.
Surely this is heresy Anglican_Brat!!! Think about what you've just written.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Albert Schweitzer, hardly a raging fundamentalist, argued that historical Jesus research by in large reflected the bias of the scholars. You make up a historical Jesus out of your own image. The Church takes it one step further, by stating that the risen Christ still speaks through the testimony of his apostolic community that emerged after his death and resurrection. The church is Christ's Body, and is now the means for accomplishing his mission.
Anglican_Brat. Without the historical Jesus, the "Church" which is Christ's continuing body, makes Jesus in its image.
You have the Spirit, but you have to have the background to translate the spirit into the here and now.
Otherwise, you, me and the church can just walk around and say "Jesus told me so!"
His life and his teachings and his reactions to his surroundings during his lifetime give us that yardstick of separating fact from fiction.
I knew that point was going to come up sooner or later. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
To a certain extent, there is no getting away around it, we do always make Jesus into something like ourselves. There is a certain degree of subjectivity involved in faith, whether it be the Black liberation theologians who see Christ as an exemplar of the black struggle for justice or feminists who view Christ as a feminist. I don't know if the historical Jesus could be called a Marxist or a feminist, or if we commit the gross sin of anachronistic thinking.
I agree with you to a certain extent in that I share Hans Kung's view that the historical Jesus is one tool (Note, I said One tool) that the Church uses to discern whether it is getting the message right or not. At the same time, our view of Jesus shouldn't be limited to just the historical Jesus.
But then I'm a catholic on this issue. I value Church tradition in that I do not dismiss the teachings of St Augustine, Aquinas, Martin Luther, and the other great Christian thinkers that are part of the apostolic community. They do not displace the Bible of course, but I consider it foolish to not engage with them. They are our brothers and sisters who I believe live and learn with us now, through the risen Christ.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline)
I think this is actually the problem of the creeds. There is nothing of his life and teachings in them.
I used to feel this way, too - but then somebody pointed out to me that this wasn't the function of the Creeds. That the Creeds were mainly lists of doctrinal statements, meant to address (and cut away) heretical beliefs. Most of these statements were attempting to do just that - they were created in response to the varying heresies, according to the church, that arose in the first few centuries of its existence.
The life and teachings are in Scripture - which is certainly viewed as having great authority. And few dispute the Gospel canon (although of course there are varying interpretations). The Creeds are simply statements of what Christians are to understand and believe about Jesus' cosmic overarching mission. The statements were meant to clarify doctrine itself.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline)
I think this is actually the problem of the creeds. There is nothing of his life and teachings in them.
I used to feel this way, too - but then somebody pointed out to me that this wasn't the function of the Creeds.
Quite so and I agree.
Which is why they are a poor test of Orthodoxy.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Err, yes. There's good stuff in Paul, don't get me wrong. Some of it is very helpful. But it's his own gloss and his own very distorted take on Jesus - whom he never even met - and he needs to be read through that critical lens.
Paul's authentic letters predate the Gospels, by what rationale would you privilege the Gospels over his writings?
There is a strong argument to be made that the gospel writers never met the historical Jesus either. What we have in the Gospels are testimonies of early Christian communities, some of which can be traced to the historical Jesus. You have written that we ought to separate the chaff from the wheat, but again, I argue, why must we privilege the historical Jesus to such an extent as to marginalize the witness of Christians from time immemorial? Should their testimonies be considered suspect and in error, including many who have gone to die for their faith?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
For me, the myth of the "Magic-Cosmic Jesus" on which so much of "orthodox" Christianity is based (as distinct from Jesus the historical figure/teacher/revolutionary, whom "orthodox" Christianity is doing its best to ignore and sideline)
I think this is actually the problem of the creeds. There is nothing of his life and teachings in them.
I used to feel this way, too - but then somebody pointed out to me that this wasn't the function of the Creeds.
Quite so and I agree.
Which is why they are a poor test of Orthodoxy.
You are correct, I prefer the 39 Articles of Religion
That way, Anabaptists can finally accept infant baptism and the Church can finally reject those who teach a mere memorialist understanding of the Lord's Supper
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
If you don't "privilege the historical Jesus" then your whole religion is just made up stories about a guy who might never have existed!
It all seems very odd. On the one hand, you say that Jesus is God; on the other, that what the Church made up about him is more important than whatever he might have actually said and done.
[X-posted; reply to AnglicanBrat's previous post]
[ 02. January 2011, 15:50: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Quite so and I agree.
Which is why they are a poor test of Orthodoxy.
The problem, though - at least as I see it - is that Scripture can be interpreted in various ways. (Not to mention that there are varying interpretations right in the Gospels themselves!)
So that one couldn't really define "orthodoxy" using the Bible, either. Don't you think? (I think this is to the good, actually - we get a lot more out of Scripture this way, and see many more possibilities.)
Perhaps the problem is just that "orthodoxy" has become kind of a bugaboo. I didn't like the term, myself, either, because it's been used as a weapon of late. But as Dave Marshall implied earlier: what's wrong with heterodoxy? Everybody's welcome in the church, or should be. As somebody else said, we don't - shouldn't - make "windows into men's souls."
Perhaps the word shouldn't be used at all. Perhaps we should just say: the Creeds are how the church has defined the boundaries of the Christian faith. They are what we fall back on when there's controversy about something - and they are how we will continue to define the boundaries of the faith. But come be controversial anyway; it could be interesting.
I'm just saying, as I said above: all things have definitions. This is the church's definition of its own faith; it does have the right to do this. And anybody's free to believe what they like - but the church will continue to profess these creeds, because they are the base definition of the faith. I just can't see how else it could be done, actually....
[ 02. January 2011, 15:52: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If you don't "privilege the historical Jesus" then your whole religion is just made up stories about a guy who might never have existed!
It all seems very odd. On the one hand, you say that Jesus is God; on the other, that what the Church made up about him is more important than whatever he might have actually said and done.
[X-posted; reply to AnglicanBrat's previous post]
I didn't write that, what is underlying your argument is your denial of the Resurrection. I believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Resurrection means that Jesus Christ is a living reality, and that he speaks through his Church. Therefore to privilege Jesus' teachings before his death over his teachings after his death and resurrection is IMHO arbitrary. As well, what we have in terms of the gospel narratives are testimonies of the post-Resurrection church both to the historical Jesus and to the risen Christ who spoke in their contemporary context.
So the Gospel of John, even though many scholars would argue has limited historical value, is still authoritative for Christians, and Christians were justified in their examination of the Gospel of John in developing a high Christology which resulted over time in Nicea and Chaledon.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If you don't "privilege the historical Jesus" then your whole religion is just made up stories about a guy who might never have existed!
To clarify: this matters if you say you worship the man-god, and that his teachings have no stand-alone value apart from the deity of the teacher. The "historical Jesus" doesn't matter so much if you take the teachings on their own merits: then the ask is actually rather different - not to find the "original" teachings in the murky waters of scripture, but to find and apply the "best" teachings.
If the historical Jesus had said things which were wrong, then the right course of action would be to reject those things.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Basically the "historical Jesus" thing is a way to say "THESE teachings of Jesus (that I like) are the REAL teachings of Jesus; those other teachings of Jesus (the ones I don't like) are not."
It's making Jesus in our own image.
If we have to deal with ALL the teachings of Jesus, then we are forced into conclusions that we may not particularly like. Can't have that. Better to tame Jesus by excising anything that doesn't suit our particular tastes.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(I think one question we might reasonably ask is, "Why are we reciting a list of doctrinal statements at every instance of Divine Service?"
I don't think this has always been the case - I forget right now what I think I used to know about this - and I'm not sure it's necessary at all.
Of course, people used to say that it was a good thing that the Creed came after the sermon. That way, you could tell if what the preacher was talking about actually made any sense and/or was doctrinally sound.
So perhaps there's a method to the madness....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Perhaps the real phrase in the Creed that people have difficulty isn't the part about Jesus' equality with God, but this phrase:
"I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic Church."
This phrase is about faith in God's church, as being faithful to the witness of Jesus. "One", in spite of its many divisions, the Church remains united as a single body of Christ carrying out the single message of Christ's redeeming love to the world. "Holy" as in the Church partakes in the holiness of God through its encounter with Christ. "Catholic" as in that the Church's message is universal and for all people in every generation and "Apostolic" as in the Church is faithful to the apostolic heritage and presents a trustworthy teaching to the world.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Ok, so what you are saying is that the historical Jesus is very important, but ultimately what the Church says trumps what the historical Jesus is believed to have said in the Bible, as the Bible can only be interpreted through the experience of the Holy Spirit working through the Church?
Have I understood your position correctly?
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Ok, so what you are saying is that the historical Jesus is very important, but ultimately what the Church says trumps what the historical Jesus is believed to have said in the Bible, as the Bible can only be interpreted through the experience of the Holy Spirit working through the Church?
Have I understood your position correctly?
My point is that the "historical Jesus" and the "Christ of faith" (to use Marcus Borg's phrase, even though I'm more conservative than Borg) are both facets of the "Real Jesus" and that we should not reject one over the other. The Resurrection is the crucial link between the two.
So I'm responding to your assumption that the historical Jesus should be privileged because it is the "Real Jesus" as opposed to the "Christ of faith" because it is a later corruption of the Church. I argue that the notion that the historical Jesus=the real Jesus is a problematic assumption and would result in us arbitrarily dismissing the insights of Paul, Augustine, and Aquinas and others simply because their focus is on the Christ of faith.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Who'd have thought it: bravo RW.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Ok.
I'm saying that the historical Jesus is very important, but ultimately what my reason and conscience say trumps what Jesus is believed to have said in the Bible, because I can only discover and interpret what is good and true through the experience of my own judgement, informed by my reason and conscience.
My reason, conscience and experience enable me to find much that is excellent and relevant in the teachings of Jesus, to ignore, critique or reinterpret that which is not so good, and to follow the way that Jesus taught, without falling into the error of thinking that he is god incarnate, born of a virgin, or any other mythological invention.
I'm feeling very Jeffersonian: "My own mind is my church". (For this church I claim no infallibility!)
(Of course, in the orthodox's book, this means "I'm picking and choosing" and "taming Jesus" by making things up according to my own tastes. So be it. The "orthodox" are doing just the same, only they've let a bunch of dead guys with beards do the picking and the choosing, the taming and the making things up for them.)
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
To a certain extent, there is no getting away around it, we do always make Jesus into something like ourselves. There is a certain degree of subjectivity involved in faith, whether it be the Black liberation theologians who see Christ as an exemplar of the black struggle for justice or feminists who view Christ as a feminist. I don't know if the historical Jesus could be called a Marxist or a feminist, or if we commit the gross sin of anachronistic thinking.
This is something that intrigues me. I don't deny that people do create all sorts of different stories about Jesus the exemplar - however, what I'm wondering is, what sort of beliefs about eschatology are likely to underpin this.
To my way of thinking, the beliefs about eschatology have got to be at least slightly Futurist. After all, there's no point in believing that Jesus was a Marxist, or a Black liberationist, or a feminist, if you don't believe that Jesus is going to come back in the future and pass judgement. If you go over to a fully realised eschatology, then the question of what Jesus might have been in the past becomes rather irrelevant.
Having said that, I think there are a number of different ways of interpreting the idea of the future return of Jesus - or indeed, any legendary hero of the past. It does not necessarily have to be in the form of a one-off apocalyptic battle, and a final victory of good over evil, although this is one of the main ways of seeing it.
However, a legendary hero of the past may also be thought to "return" in the way they inspire people to ape their glory by copying their achievements, and out-doing them if they can. And a martyr can be thought to "return" or to "rise from the dead" in the way that the death of the martyr provokes a desire for vengeance among his followers.
It seems to me that realised eschatology beliefs deny not just the end-times apocalyptic battle, but also perhaps these other more metaphorical ways of understanding the return of the exemplar. Or do they? Perhaps they don't, I don't know.
It still seems to me that creedal orthodoxy requires some level of belief in the historicity of Jesus, and some level of futurism in the interpretation of prophecy. And I'm not yet convinced that the way that Jesus gets re-invented as an exemplar for all sorts of different pet hobby horses is entirely consistent with that.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
when in fact they only gave those teachings credit in the first place because it was Jesus, and not someone else, who taught them.
But that's not the case, is it? If I'd thought the teachings of Mohammed were superior, I'd have become a Muslim. I became a Christian only because of the teachings of Jesus, and because they seemed to offer the hope of a way out of some of the destructive aspects of humanity. My aim is to end man's inhumanity to man and to promote living well together; religion is good in so much as it supports, and does not detract from, that aim. Jesus' teachings, in my own personal and unverifiable experience, really do offer the most excellent way, the most fundamental truth, and the liberating, abundant life.
Aha! I think I spot the flaw in your reasoning. You seem to assume that an appreciation of the teachings of Jesus constitutes Christian orthodoxy, and qualifies people as "Christians".
But it does neither of those things.
Just because you think you like the teachings of Jesus, does not mean that Christian orthodoxy ever has been defined in terms of the teachings of Jesus, and nor does it mean that it should be defined in terms of the teachings of Jesus.
I think Anglican_Brat has illustrated quite well the scope for variation in the way that the teachings of Jesus may be interpreted, and how it may lead Jesus to be seen as an exemplar for all sorts of different causes, not all of which are in harmony with each other. This is the reason why it's very difficult to define orthodoxy if we are relying on the teachings of Jesus alone.
Put simply, the teachings of Jesus are too long, too complicated, and too self-contradictory. The creeds are a lot shorter, and a lot simpler - even though they admittedly use technical theological terminology like "Trinity" and "Incarnation" whose meanings are not always self-evident.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If you don't "privilege the historical Jesus" then your whole religion is just made up stories about a guy who might never have existed!
Yes - but it seems that by your own arguments, it doesn't matter if the whole religion of Christianity is just made up stories about a guy who might never have existed!
If the teachings which you say are "of Jesus" really do "offer the hope of a way out of some of the destructive aspects of humanity" - then they should be able to offer the same hope, regardless of their source. It should not make any difference whether they were first taught by Jesus or by someone else - and it should not matter whether Jesus actually existed or not either.
And more to the point, the question of whether those teachings constitute "Christian orthodoxy" or not should also not depend on whether Jesus actually existed or not.
But if that's the case, then how could such teachings ever come to be considered "Christian" in the first place? It seems to me that the fact that there's a Christian identity to go with these teachings that you say are "of Jesus" is wholly dependent on the fact that there's a story of a bloke called "Jesus" that goes with the teachings. If you kept the teachings, but lost the story of Jesus, then the teachings would cease to be considered Christian.
And that's the reason why it makes no sense to consider them a sole yardstick for Christian orthodoxy - do you not see?
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I'm saying that the historical Jesus is very important, but ultimately what my reason and conscience say trumps what Jesus is believed to have said in the Bible, because I can only discover and interpret what is good and true through the experience of my own judgement, informed by my reason and conscience.
My reason, conscience and experience enable me to find much that is excellent and relevant in the teachings of Jesus, to ignore, critique or reinterpret that which is not so good, and to follow the way that Jesus taught, without falling into the error of thinking that he is god incarnate, born of a virgin, or any other mythological invention.
Yes. But this is not about what you believe. It's about how we define "Christian orthodoxy".
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
(Of course, in the orthodox's book, this means "I'm picking and choosing" and "taming Jesus" by making things up according to my own tastes. So be it. The "orthodox" are doing just the same, only they've let a bunch of dead guys with beards do the picking and the choosing, the taming and the making things up for them.)
Perhaps you are picking and choosing. Then again, perhaps you're not. Perhaps the "orthodox" are picking and choosing too. But then again, perhaps they're not.
However, none of that is relevant to how we define "christian orthodoxy". The Creeds themselves do not state that Christians are required to believe that orthodoxy itself is not an exercise in "picking and choosing".
To my way of thinking, the only thing that really matters is that whatever has been picked and chosen, stays picked and chosen for a reasonable length of time, and gets properly codified in creeds and statements of faith, such that it can be considered a form of "orthodoxy".
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
(Of course, in the orthodox's book, this means "I'm picking and choosing" and "taming Jesus" by making things up according to my own tastes. So be it. The "orthodox" are doing just the same, only they've let a bunch of dead guys with beards do the picking and the choosing, the taming and the making things up for them.)
But the fact is that Jefferson's Bible (for instance) has been judged by many generations and found wanting in various ways. This is just an obvious conclusion, since it's not well-known and not used by the vast majority of human beings calling themselves Christian. This is OK, but it's not just "a bunch of dead guys with beards"; it's lots and lots and lots of folks - living beardless women included.
IOW, the demand simply isn't there. Which is OK, too - but I think this says that you're wrong about the Bible and about Christian doctrine. I think it says that many, many people do in fact find value in both these things. And these facts in themselves says something about the human condition, I'd say.
For myself, I wouldn't pay the slightest attention to the church if I didn't believe what it teaches. To me, it's an utter absurdity without its doctrine; I'd stay far, far away, believe me.
It helps to remember that doctrine hasn't been picked out of the air; it came about as a way to address real-world concerns. And I think there is a limit to the number of these concerns, in fact! I'm trying to think of a possible fresh new heresy (I'm using that word in its exact and non-pejorative sense) and I can't, really; Christian doctrine is logical, and has only a few axioms. One of them is the Incarnation, though - so if that's a no-go for you, then the rest will make absolutely no sense.
But for lots of us, without that first axiom, there's literally no reason to be involved. Jesus did have interesting things to say, I agree - but most (not all) of what he said can be found in the Old Testament. It's what he did that makes the difference for me and many others.
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
(And certainly I wouldn't call Christianity without the Incarnation a religion. It would be, literally, blasphemous in my eyes.
It would have to be a philosophy - but of course, Jesus was a religious Jew, and everything he said and did, he said and did within the confines of that framework. I don't see how you can pull Jesus out of Judaism and make him a mere philosopher.
Historical doctrinal Christianity does, really, make perfect sense. It's completely internally consistent - at least, I find it so....)
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Aha! I think I spot the flaw in your reasoning. You seem to assume that an appreciation of the teachings of Jesus constitutes Christian orthodoxy, and qualifies people as "Christians".
It should, if the word Christian were to have any good meaning to it. Although I'd say its important not just to appreciate the teachings, but to apply them. Jesus wanted disciples, not worshippers or admirers.
quote:
But it does neither of those things.
Fair enough. But that's only because the "orthodox" have deviated so far away from the Jesus they claim to know.
quote:
Just because you think you like the teachings of Jesus, does not mean that Christian orthodoxy ever has been defined in terms of the teachings of Jesus, and nor does it mean that it should be defined in terms of the teachings of Jesus.
Obviously it should be; but it hasn't, not since the very earliest days.
quote:
I think Anglican_Brat has illustrated quite well the scope for variation in the way that the teachings of Jesus may be interpreted, and how it may lead Jesus to be seen as an exemplar for all sorts of different causes, not all of which are in harmony with each other. This is the reason why it's very difficult to define orthodoxy if we are relying on the teachings of Jesus.
Put simply, the teachings of Jesus are too long, too complicated, and too self-contradictory.
Wait, isn't this fellow supposed to be YOUR GOD? Seesh. It's such a small and pathetic god if you put it like that: he can't even make himself clear. The case for what you call Christianity is looking weaker than ever.
quote:
The creeds are a lot shorter, and a lot simpler - even though they admittedly use technical theological terminology like "Trinity" and "Incarnation" whose meanings are not always self-evident.
And I'm the one who gets accused of bending the truth for my own convenience?!
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If you don't "privilege the historical Jesus" then your whole religion is just made up stories about a guy who might never have existed!
Yes - but it seems that by your own arguments, it doesn't matter if the whole religion of Christianity is just made up stories about a guy who might never have existed!
If the teachings which you say are "of Jesus" really do "offer the hope of a way out of some of the destructive aspects of humanity" - then they should be able to offer the same hope, regardless of their source. It should not make any difference whether they were first taught by Jesus or by someone else - and it should not matter whether Jesus actually existed or not either.
And more to the point, the question of whether those teachings constitute "Christian orthodoxy" or not should also not depend on whether Jesus actually existed or not. quote:
I've addressed this point directly above. It's the one that starts, "To clarify:...".
[QUOTE]But if that's the case, then how could such teachings ever come to be considered "Christian" in the first place? It seems to me that the fact that there's a Christian identity to go with these teachings that you say are "of Jesus" is wholly dependent on the fact that there's a story of a bloke called "Jesus" that goes with the teachings. If you kept the teachings, but lost the story of Jesus, then the teachings would cease to be considered Christian.
The Socratic method would still be the Socratic method of Socrates had been a figment of Plato's imagination. It's the same thing.
quote:
And that's the reason why it makes no sense to consider them a sole yardstick for Christian orthodoxy - do you not see?
What I see is that Christianity is a false religion that what it claims to be "orthodoxy" is untrue. That's why I no longer go to church (although I miss it deeply) and no longer self-identify as Christian (although I remain a committed disciple of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth). You've all got it completely wrong, and totally missed the point of what Jesus was all about.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(And certainly I wouldn't call Christianity without the Incarnation a religion. It would be, literally, blasphemous in my eyes.
No. What's blasphemous is to imagine that a person is God. As the Muslims say, "lam walid wa lam yulad wa la lahu kufwan adhad" - [God] was not begotten, did not beget, and has no equal".
quote:
It would have to be a philosophy - but of course, Jesus was a religious Jew, and everything he said and did, he said and did within the confines of that framework. I don't see how you can pull Jesus out of Judaism and make him a mere philosopher.
Cos it's easier than pulling him out of Judaism and making him God. Anyway, I'm happy to say that I follow a sort of Christian philosophy but not a Christian religion - because the philosophy has much that is good in it, but the religion is false.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
No. What's blasphemous is to imagine that a person is God. As the Muslims say, "lam walid wa lam yulad wa la lahu kufwan adhad" - [God] was not begotten, did not beget, and has no equal".
And that's the reason for the Trinity, and then for the Creeds. Jesus is the Incarnation of God. This is not blasphemous; it's the solution to blasphemy - and it's also a really interesting idea.
And of course I'm not a Muslim, so it wouldn't matter to me what the Muslim take on this is, except as a point of interest.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Cos it's easier than pulling him out of Judaism and making him God. Anyway, I'm happy to say that I follow a sort of Christian philosophy but not a Christian religion - because the philosophy has much that is good in it, but the religion is false.
Well, you've sort of got a point there - but there are divine characters in Judaism, too. Jesus is unique, I grant, in his divinity in Christianity - but then, he did claim to be unique as well.
And if you're OK in following a Christian philosophy - why worry about what the Christian religion calls "orthodox"? Just curious.
But let's go another way. How would you define "Christian Orthodoxy"? It's clear you believe there is one, because you claim that what's considered orthodox at present is flatly wrong.
IOW, what, exactly, are the tenets of the Christian philosophy? And how did you arrive at these tenets?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
Going back a bit:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
The Creeds themselves do not state that Christians are required to believe that orthodoxy itself is not an exercise in "picking and choosing".
That's given me an idea. I wonder what Christianity would look like if the Creeds did state that Christians are required to believe that orthodoxy is not an exercise in picking and choosing.
An accusation of "picking and choosing" is a frequently used rhetorical device in Christian polemics and apologetics - so it's no surprise that RadicalWhig has also tried to use this rhetorical device. But what does it actually mean?
I think it's fair to say that when an apologist does accuse someone of "picking and choosing", the argument is based on the assumption that those who do not "pick and choose" are those who adhere to the full set of creedal statements.
There has to be a clear set of statements of doctrine, in order to compare that set with a rival preacher's professed beliefs. And there is only a basis for saying that a rival preacher is "picking and choosing" if that rival's set of professed beliefs do not match that list of doctrinal statements.
But when someone says that orthodoxy itself is "picking and choosing", then we have a problem - because it's orthodoxy that defines the creeds that enable us to say whether a rival preacher is "picking and choosing" or not. Therefore, orthodoxy cannot logically be said to be "picking and choosing" - unless we are to create an alternative set of doctrines, to which orthodoxy itself can be compared. A kind of "super-orthodoxy" if you like.
Has orthodoxy itself picked and chosen? Of course it has! How do we suppose anyone might have ever come to a decision about which books should be included in the Bible, and which books should be excluded, if no-one had ever picked and chosen?
The whole point of the creeds is that the early church has made choices about what is orthodox, and what is heretical. A profession of the creeds carries the implication that those who set the creeds had the authority to set them in the way that they did.
If one person doesn't agree with the content of the creeds, that's fine. However, that alone is not enough to prompt "orthodoxy" to be redefined. However, there is no requirement for Christians to believe that orthodoxy has not made choices.
If there was a requirement that Christians believed that orthodoxy had not made choices, then that would serve to undermine the authority of the choices that orthodoxy has made. One of the effects of this would be to undermine the authority of the canonical lists, by which we can say that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the only four legitimate Gospels.
To accuse someone of "picking and choosing" is nothing more than a rhetorical device. It has no binding effect on the definition of Christian orthodoxy. If anyone has ever accused you of picking and choosing, Christian orthodoxy does not require you to believe that they might be right. So you needn't take it that seriously.
I'd be interested in knowing how RadicalWhig defines Christian orthodoxy.
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
quote:
But if that's the case, then how could such teachings ever come to be considered "Christian" in the first place? It seems to me that the fact that there's a Christian identity to go with these teachings that you say are "of Jesus" is wholly dependent on the fact that there's a story of a bloke called "Jesus" that goes with the teachings. If you kept the teachings, but lost the story of Jesus, then the teachings would cease to be considered Christian.
The Socratic method would still be the Socratic method of Socrates had been a figment of Plato's imagination. It's the same thing.
We need to make a distinction between whether Jesus as a real living breathing person ever existed, and whether stories of Jesus exist.
Stories of Hitler exist. Stories of Hercules exist. Stories of Alexander the Great exist. Stories of Reynard the Fox exist. Stories of Paris Hilton exist. Stories of Lindsay Lohan exist. Stories of Bart Simpson exist.
Some of these were probably real people, others probably weren't. But that's not the point. The point is the stories.
There is a narrative thread running through Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedo, and in my opinion, that constitutes a story of Socrates - or, rather, one story of Socrates. Whether Socrates actually existed or not is beside the point. I think you would find it quite difficult to remove the "story" from the "teachings", in a way which left the "teachings" intact. Most of the "teachings" of Socrates are presented in the form of dramatised dialogues, not unlike the way that the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides are presented.
And I suspect the same is true of Jesus. The Gospels are primarily narratives. They are only secondarily concerned with the teachings of Jesus; to the extent that they are concerned with those teachings, it's only as part of the larger plot of the overall story.
That's not to say that you can't isolate individual parables or sayings of Jesus. Of course you can; you can isolate individual parables and sayings just as much as you can isolate individual stories from Arabian Nights, or Ovid's Metamorphoses, or Apuleius's Golden Ass.
But what you can't do is extract a complete collection of sayings, parables and teachings of Jesus, and strip it of the story narrative, in a way that keeps those teachings intact. That's because, like the dialogues of Socrates, the meaning of much of Jesus's teaching is dependent upon its context within the overall narrative structure of the relevant Gospel.
Of course, you can try - but what will you do with the context-sensitive material? Will you simply exclude it? If so, then how will you decide which parts of the teachings of Jesus are context-sensitive, and which parts aren't?
Suddenly, the boundaries at the edge of what can and can't be thought of as the "teachings of Jesus" become a lot more slippery.
Don't you see how difficult this makes the use of some loosely defined notion of "the teachings of Jesus" to define orthodoxy?
If you were to say that the creeds are in some ways ambiguous, I would agree with you. But I think they're a lot less ambiguous than this notion of defining orthodoxy in terms of the teachings of Jesus that you seem to be getting at.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Good question. To my mind, Christian orthodoxy is following in way and spirit of Jesus, following a Jesus-centred ethic of life.
That means critically appreciating the teachings of the historical Jesus as depicted in the scriptures, understanding them and interpreting them, and following them as best we can.
Here are two "creeds" which I think are a lot more genuinely orthodox than those who claim to be orthodox would admit:
(1) "Love is the doctrine of this church. The quest for truth is its sacrament, and service is its prayer. To dwell together in peace; to seek knowledge in freedom; to serve humanity in fellowship; to the end that all souls shall grow together into harmony with the source and meaning of life." (From a Unitarian declaration of faith by L. Griswold Williams).
(2) "I believe in one God. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." (From the Rights of Man by Tom Paine).
It's hard to summarise all of what constitutes the trust and substance of Jesus' teachings in a few words, and neither of these is perfect, but both of these are much closer to what Jesus was getting at - the "Kingdom of God on Earth" - than the official received creeds of "orthodoxy".
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Good question. To my mind, Christian orthodoxy is following in way and spirit of Jesus, following a Jesus-centred ethic of life.
That means critically appreciating the teachings of the historical Jesus as depicted in the scriptures, understanding them and interpreting them, and following them as best we can.
Here are two "creeds" which I think are a lot more genuinely orthodox than those who claim to be orthodox would admit:
(1) "Love is the doctrine of this church. The quest for truth is its sacrament, and service is its prayer. To dwell together in peace; to seek knowledge in freedom; to serve humanity in fellowship; to the end that all souls shall grow together into harmony with the source and meaning of life." (From a Unitarian declaration of faith by L. Griswold Williams).
(2) "I believe in one God. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." (From the Rights of Man by Tom Paine).
It's hard to summarise all of what constitutes the trust and substance of Jesus' teachings in a few words, and neither of these is perfect, but both of these are much closer to what Jesus was getting at - the "Kingdom of God on Earth" - than the official received creeds of "orthodoxy".
OK, I get you.
#2 of course could happen without Jesus at all - it's strictly Judaism, Micah, and secular notions of the "equality of man" - but the first I would grant to have a strong Jesus influence, because of the emphasis on love.
And I do think you have a point there! I think there should be far more emphasis on love in the church - but then, lots of Christians throughout history have thought so, too. St. Francis, for example, and St. Nicholas and St. Seraphim and St. Martin - and St. Paul, now that I think of it! "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
I don't see the Creeds, though, in opposition to this - although it's very possible that they have become dry and rote and remote. It would be very interesting, in fact, to include "love" as an integral part of Christian orthodoxy! The Nicean Creed - and I Corinthians 13 together, maybe?
I must say I think it really would make a difference. I think the Creeds are actually quite generous - they don't demand more than assent to bare essentials. But maybe they themselves are only "philosoophy" and it would be good to make explicit an emphasis on love as part of "orthodoxy." Of course, this would also exclude people, many of whom are not able to give love initially but who might become so later.
But these are things worth thinking about....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
