[billmc]

davidk, on Apr 1 2009, 12:19 PM, said:

[font=Garamond][size=3]When I use the word 'philosophy', I'm generally referring to someone's personal perception or their world view rather than that overly complicated academic study called, PHILOSOPHY.

I understand. I usually call it metanarrative or paradigm or, as you say, worldview. But I'm not a philosopher in the same league with others who have studied THE Philosophies.

Quote

Your first question covers huge amounts of territory. I mean, to ask, Why are we here? and to recognize that, something's wrong with us and it needs fixing; and then that, we need something that, gives us some sort of purpose or goal or meaning... some sort of framework for life!
I mean, you have put into one simple paragraph what has perplexed man over his entire history.

It seems that only humans are plagued by this things. When I am reincarnated, I want to come back as a rabbit so that I don't have to wonder about such things. Plus, I'm pretty much guaranteed to have a good time!

Quote

I believe that we have to be able to find answers that we can understand. They'd have to be pretty straight forward if I'm to be expected to understand them. I believe we have those answers, the very ones you're looking for.

Well...I'm game...sort of. But I'm not too interested in answers that say, "We were created to worship God." To me, I wouldn't find much meaning and purpose in standing before God's throne singing "Holy, holy, holy" for 50 billion trillion years trying to just get to the next verse. And God that would need such constant propping up of his ego just doesn't seem much worthy of worship to me.

I tend to think that we were created to be co-creators and that this will somehow continue into "eternity." I don't see the "answer" as finding a place in heaven for me to take an eternal coffee-break. I think we do best when we are challenged to grow and mature and that "static-ness" that is portrayed in much of Christianity as being the "eternal state" doesn't work for me at all.

So what IS your take on the BIG questions? What do YOU think the BIG answers are?

bill

[JosephM]

wayfarer2k, on Apr 1 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

(snip)
You said, "To me I can only say Christ is your divine nature."

Hmmm, I'll have to think about that. I mean, I do think that everyone has what is sometimes called "the divine spark" or maybe "the image of God" within them. But despite this, I don't see everyone acting like Jesus. Not even me.

Neither do I. Saying Christ is your divine nature doesn't mean it has surfaced for all to see.

Quote

There is, to me, some merit in Paul's use of the phrase "Christ" as a possible divine nature. But I still think that most NT references to Christ tend to point to the person of Jesus. If you don't, this is simply an area where we disagree. We can do that, right?

No need to agree or disagree. It indeed does say those things you mention. The NT says many things and many are deep and some are not true. You are welcome to have a different perspective. Although I quoted it for convenience sake it is not my authority.

(snip)

Quote

Perhaps in the future that will change. Maybe the time will come for Progressive Christians to no longer speak of Jesus and his teachings. They may claim their own authority from the "Christ within." But then we will have up to 6 billion Christs and I doubt that could all be right.

That is the mystery that is revealed in Christ. The many are one.

Quote

Anyway, thanks for chewing on this with me. I understand that your Christ has very little to do with the historical Jesus. That's okay. But its not the path for me. Still friends though, right?

bill

It is not my Christ (as in "your Christ"). I have no need to posess something as my own when it is not. No other's path is the path for you or you would be the other. They all lead to the same. Why would I have it any other way than what it is. Our friendship has never been in doubt in my mind nor can your words change it.

Love Joseph

[billmc]

JosephM, on Apr 1 2009, 08:29 PM, said:

Neither do I. Saying Christ is your divine nature doesn't mean it has surfaced for all to see.

Just curious, does this, for you, imply that humans have two natures, that they are schizophrenic? Paul seemed to think so. What do you think?

Quote

No need to agree or disagree. It indeed does say those things you mention. The NT says many things and many are deep and some are not true.

That's sort of been my point. Historically, Christianity says that they see the love of God in Christ. But Christ as portrayed in the scriptures is not always loving.

Quote

It is not my Christ (as in "your Christ"). I have no need to posess something as my own when it is not.

I'm not speaking ontologically, just functionally. My standard for Christ is Jesus of Nazareth. I know this is not your standard for Christ. But if you assume my standard momentarily, and then you look at all the other Christs (even Paul's Christ), it must be concluded that the Christ we see in other or in Paul is not the same Christ we see in Jesus. It isn't a matter of ownership, my friend, it is a matter of likeness. David Koresh's Christ looks nothing like your Christ (hopefully).

So all I am saying is that if we look at Christ as seen in the life of Jesus and then compare that Christ with others, I don't see how we can say that "they are one" except to exist in the same universe.

Jesus said that many would come in his name, but that his followers were not to go after them. I see a different picture in Jerry Falwell's Christ than I do in Marcus Borg's Christ. It's not a matter of ownership, it's a matter of becoming like the kind of God we worship. That's my point.

Hope that clears up what I'm trying to say also.

bill

This post has been edited by wayfarer2k: 02 April 2009 - 06:21 AM

[JosephM]

wayfarer2k, on Apr 2 2009, 07:19 AM, said:

Just curious, does this, for you, imply that humans have two natures, that they are schizophrenic? Paul seemed to think so. What do you think?

No. It seems to me that humans have only one nature.

Quote

That's sort of been my point. Historically, Christianity says that they see the love of God in Christ. But Christ as portrayed in the scriptures is not always loving.

It seems to me that man's definition of love and God's love are not the same. If God is Love then the meaning is beyond words and the way to know that meaning is through Christ which you will not find in a book or in words or in thinking but in oneness with that Love.

wayfarer2k said:

I'm not speaking ontologically, just functionally. My standard for Christ is Jesus of Nazareth. I know this is not your standard for Christ. But if you assume my standard momentarily, and then you look at all the other Christs (even Paul's Christ), it must be concluded that the Christ we see in other or in Paul is not the same Christ we see in Jesus. It isn't a matter of ownership, my friend, it is a matter of likeness. David Koresh's Christ looks nothing like your Christ (hopefully).
So all I am saying is that if we look at Christ as seen in the life of Jesus and then compare that Christ with others, I don't see how we can say that "they are one" except to exist in the same universe.

How can I have a standard for Christ? If I did, I would be creating something that is not Christ. Christ is, I am. When I speak more of Christ than that, I depart from truth. Does a butterfly need a standard to be itself? I know nothing of this Paul's Christ you speak of nor David Koresh's. Yes i know what is written of them but there is no need for me to judge what others have written about them or say they said. There is only one God and Christ and it is all in all. What you or I perceive with our thinking mind and speak with words is not Christ. There is only one Christ. There is no ownership on anyones part. To speak otherwise is in my experience folly. There is no need to compare one Christ with another because spiritually speaking there is nothing to compare. What you ask me to do by assuming any standard for Christ even momentarily to compare or judge others is perhaps... in a sense anti-Christ. (no offence made or taken)

wayfarer2k said:

Jesus said that many would come in his name, but that his followers were not to go after them. I see a different picture in Jerry Falwell's Christ than I do in Marcus Borg's Christ. It's not a matter of ownership, it's a matter of becoming like the kind of God we worship. That's my point.

Hope that clears up what I'm trying to say also.

bill

Yes. I know what you are trying to say. All pass through that thinking. Why not choose to move on? If we as humans stop looking at others and measuring and comparing and judging, we see one Christ and a new world appears. The perfection of God is seen in the universe for what it is and then what Borg or Falwell says becomes irrelevant to who we are or thought that they were.

Just something to consider.
Love Joseph

This post has been edited by JosephM: 02 April 2009 - 08:49 AM

[billmc]

>>No. It seems to me that humans have only one nature.

It seems that way to me also, Joseph. But traditional Christianity often says that Jesus had two natures – his human nature and his divine nature. Some would call his human nature Jesus and his divine nature Christ. Jesus becomes, in this view, two separate persons indwelling one body.

>>It seems to me that man's definition of love and God's love are not the same. If God is Love then the meaning is beyond words and the way to know that meaning is through Christ which you will not find in a book or in words or in thinking but in oneness with that Love.

I agree with you…in part. But if you are correct that man’s definition of love and God’s definition of love are not the same, then when the Bible, which was written by men to men, speaks of God as love or God’s love, then it is utter nonsense to us, isn’t it? It is analogous to saying that God is our heavenly Father, but that his role as father has no counterpart whatsoever to human fathers. If God’s role as father or his love has no counterpart to human fathers or human love, then speaking of God becomes meaningless. My opinion only, but if we focus too much on God’s transcendence, on his ineffableness, then we end up saying nothing whatsoever about him. While I agree that God’s love is beyond fully capturing in words, words and actions are all we have in order to communicate that love.

>>Does a butterfly need a standard to be itself?

It depends on a certain point of reference, doesn’t it? If we are talking, as you seem to be doing, on a metaphysical level, that a butterfly is made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of protons, neutron, and electrons, which are made up of…whatever…then, yes, it becomes senseless to talk about differentiations between one butterfly and another. For that matter (pun intended), at that level there is no difference between a butterfly and hippopotamus or a rock. We can say, with a high degree of assurance, that “all are one.” Okay. Fine. I get it.

But the fact is, we don’t experience life or existence on the atomic or subatomic level. We experience life on a high level of diversity where, despite the basic building blocks of matter, we DO make differentiations between things. As we experience and know a butterfly AS a butterfly. A butterfly is NOT a rock. Nor is it a hippopotamus. Nor is a Monarch butterfly the same as a Swallowtail butterfly. And that is my point; a butterfly has certain characteristics on the level in which we experience life that differentiates it from other things. And while a Monarch is not exactly the same as a Swallowtail, most would agree that they are both butterflies, not one a butterfly and one a hippopotamus.

Similarly, there seem to be different “Christs”. You say that, spiritually or metaphysically speaking, they are all the same. I say that, experientially, they are not. The Christ that David Koresh believed in is NOT the same Christ that I believe in. Nor is Paul’s Christ that same Christ that we see in Jesus. Their messages ARE different.

>>There is no need to compare one Christ with another because spiritually speaking there is nothing to compare.

And that is where you and I are on a different wavelength. I think there is a differentiation and I think it is a big one.

>>Why not choose to move on?

Because I don’t wish to move on to a level where I can make God or Jesus or Christ out to be anything that I want them to be and then insist that there is no differentiation between the God that told the terrorists to fly the airplanes into the Twin Towers and the Father of Jesus.

>>If we as humans stop looking at others and measuring and comparing and judging, we see one Christ and a new world appears….

…in which it is okay for anyone to do anything they want to anyone they choose because we don’t want to compare or measure morality or make judgments about how we should treat each other.

If, Joseph, you really believe this line -- that we shouldn’t look at others, measure, compare, or judge, then why do you even participate here at TCPC? Everytime you read a post, you are looking somewhat at the person that wrote it, measuring their words, comparing your own perceptions, and making some type of judgment. So why do you do it is this is not the world you live in?

bill

[JosephM]

wayfarer2k, on Apr 2 2009, 01:39 PM, said:

(snip)
>>It seems to me that man's definition of love and God's love are not the same. If God is Love then the meaning is beyond words and the way to know that meaning is through Christ which you will not find in a book or in words or in thinking but in oneness with that Love.

I agree with you…in part. But if you are correct that man’s definition of love and God’s definition of love are not the same, then when the Bible, which was written by men to men, speaks of God as love or God’s love, then it is utter nonsense to us, isn’t it? It is analogous to saying that God is our heavenly Father, but that his role as father has no counterpart whatsoever to human fathers. If God’s role as father or his love has no counterpart to human fathers or human love, then speaking of God becomes meaningless. My opinion only, but if we focus too much on God’s transcendence, on his ineffableness, then we end up saying nothing whatsoever about him. While I agree that God’s love is beyond fully capturing in words, words and actions are all we have in order to communicate that love.

Perhaps you read more into what I have said than what I have said.

Quote

>>Does a butterfly need a standard to be itself?

It depends on a certain point of reference, doesn’t it? If we are talking, as you seem to be doing, on a metaphysical level, that a butterfly is made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of protons, neutron, and electrons, which are made up of…whatever…then, yes, it becomes senseless to talk about differentiations between one butterfly and another. For that matter (pun intended), at that level there is no difference between a butterfly and hippopotamus or a rock. We can say, with a high degree of assurance, that “all are one.” Okay. Fine. I get it.

But the fact is, we don’t experience life or existence on the atomic or subatomic level. We experience life on a high level of diversity where, despite the basic building blocks of matter, we DO make differentiations between things. As we experience and know a butterfly AS a butterfly. A butterfly is NOT a rock. Nor is it a hippopotamus. Nor is a Monarch butterfly the same as a Swallowtail butterfly. And that is my point; a butterfly has certain characteristics on the level in which we experience life that differentiates it from other things. And while a Monarch is not exactly the same as a Swallowtail, most would agree that they are both butterflies, not one a butterfly and one a hippopotamus.

Similarly, there seem to be different “Christs”. You say that, spiritually or metaphysically speaking, they are all the same. I say that, experientially, they are not. The Christ that David Koresh believed in is NOT the same Christ that I believe in. Nor is Paul’s Christ that same Christ that we see in Jesus. Their messages ARE different.

Obviously a poor analogy on my part. My point was that Christ needs no standard even as a butterfly needs no standard for itself. It is standard in itself. It is beyond judgement or comparison.

Should i be looking to their messages for truth?

wayfarer2k said:

>>There is no need to compare one Christ with another because spiritually speaking there is nothing to compare.

And that is where you and I are on a different wavelength. I think there is a differentiation and I think it is a big one.

Perhaps we are.

wayfarer2k said:

>>If we as humans stop looking at others and measuring and comparing and judging, we see one Christ and a new world appears….

…in which it is okay for anyone to do anything they want to anyone they choose because we don’t want to compare or measure morality or make judgments about how we should treat each other.

Never said that. That is a conclusion based on your understanding of what I said. I would say ... Always treat others with Love as God does and judgements about how we treat each other will not have to be made.

wayfarer2k said:

If, Joseph, you really believe this line -- that we shouldn’t look at others, measure, compare, or judge, then why do you even participate here at TCPC? Everytime you read a post, you are looking somewhat at the person that wrote it, measuring their words, comparing your own perceptions, and making some type of judgment. So why do you do it is this is not the world you live in?

bill

Am I treating you poorly or without Love? Am I measuring you or just sharing a different perspective through dialogue? Am I really judging you or are you judging yourself because you are judging me? I am not aware of judging you or myself. Oh yes, i am in the world... but perhaps not of the world...

Love Joseph

[billmc]

JosephM, on Apr 2 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

Always treat others with Love as God does and judgements about how we treat each other will not have to be made.

I agree. And that is, again, where we see a differentiation between Jesus Christ and Paul's Christ. Paul actually called down curses on people, on anyone who disagreed with his theology. And even you yourself make "friendly" allusions that you are "further down the road" or more enlightened than others.

Quote

Am I treating you poorly or without Love? Am I measuring you or just sharing a different perspective through dialogue? Am I really judging you or are you judging yourself because you are judging me? I am not aware of judging you or myself.

I only meant what I said...and said what I meant.

Quote

Oh yes, i am in the world... but perhaps not of the world...

I hear the "Twilight Zone" theme going off in my head.

Thanks for chatting.

bill

This post has been edited by wayfarer2k: 02 April 2009 - 02:01 PM

[davidk]

Bill,
Like you I don't want to get too involved in THE philosophies, but it is how we approach truth and being sure that what we think we know of the world is correct. Like: God objectively exists, in contrast to His not existing. Because which of these two are the reality changes everything in the area of the answers we get to the questions of why we're here, what's wrong, and what's the meaning to it all.
Pretty basic stuff to start with.

Do you think we need another thread, or private messages?

Dk

[JosephM]

wayfarer2k, on Apr 2 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

I agree. And that is, again, where we see a differentiation between Jesus Christ and Paul's Christ. Paul actually called down curses on people, on anyone who disagreed with his theology. And even you yourself make "friendly" allusions that you are "further down the road" or more enlightened than others.

(snip)

Thanks for chatting.

bill

Personally i do not compare or analyse between Jesus and Paul having different portrayals of Christ. It seems to me to be a fruitless endeavour. Perhaps not for others as i speak for myself. As far as the allusions you refer to they exist only in the mind of the one who measures. To me there is no more or less enlightened. Everything is as it is. One is not better than the other. Only different. Perhaps you look at it differently than I?

As far as the concept of "further down the road". In a million years it will not even matter to your flesh. Time is not a concept of Spirit. Anyway, it is always a pleasure to dialog with you and it is never a requirement of mine that you have to agree as i realize that the perspective i speak from is different than your experience to some degree. Yet I do hope any stimulation you do get from our conversations is positive for you.

Love in Christ,
Joseph

[billmc]

JosephM, on Apr 2 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

Yet I do hope any stimulation you do get from our conversations is positive for you.

Likewise, Joseph.

Shalom,
bill

[billmc]

davidk, on Apr 2 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

[font=Garamond][size=3]God objectively exists, in contrast to His not existing.

Yes, BUT...(you know me) we first have to talk about what we mean by God. Again, philosophy enters the picture. The kind of God that I believed in at the age of 12 no longer makes sense to me. My understandings and experiences of God have changed since then.

This doesn't mean that I think God changes. He may or may not, I don't know. I just mean, primarily, that human perceptions and conceptions of God change. It is when we solidify our own perceptions into stone that we make idols.

So when somebody tells me, "I believe in God", I usually have to inquire into their understanding of God so that we can be on a similar wavelength in the discussion. This doesn't mean we agree, just that we understand each other.

If you'd like to start a new thread, have at it. But, like you, I try to keep things as simple as possible.

Was it Einstein who said, "Make things as simple as possible...but no simpler"? And also, "Anything that can be put into a nutshell probably belongs there."

bill

[billmc]

Here is a post that I wrote recently on another forum that pertains to this subject:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord', shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father who is in heaven." - Matthew 7:21

What does it mean to be Christian?

There are probably as many different answers to this question as there different Christian denominations or even different Christians. And the ironic thing about the label "Christian" is that those that use it of themselves are sure that they (and others who agree with them) are "true Christians" while others (especially those who don't agree with them) are not.

Whom do we look to for the answer to this question? Luther? Augustine? The Pope? Your pastor? Billy Graham? Your family?

To me, if we use the label "Christian" or aspire to be a Christian, then we need to look at what Jesus of Nazareth had to say about it.

Technically, Jesus did not speak of Christians or Christianity. Jesus was a Jewish reformer, not the starter of a new religion. So Jesus himself never defined Christians or Christianity. He did, however, talk about what it meant to follow him. In reality, Christians, if they are anything, should be followers of Christ. If someone doesn't follow Christ, then it is reasonable to assume that they are Christian in name only.

So Christians should be, first and foremost, followers of Jesus. This is not primarily believing things ABOUT Jesus, this is following what Jesus TAUGHT. If I claimed to be a follower of Billy Graham and could tell you when and where he was born, where he grew up, where he went to school, where and when his crusades were held, and what books he has written, BUT I couldn't tell you what Billy taught, then my claim to follow him would ring hollow. I might know alot about him, but would I really be justified to call myself a follower if I didn't know his central message and purpose? Likewise, if I did know Billy Graham's central message but never took his message to heart and tried to live by what he taught, my claim to be a follower would be disputable.

It is much the same with Jesus. If we claim to be Christians but don't know what Jesus taught or don't endeavor to put his teachings into practice, then our claim simply rings hollow. This is exactly what Jesus is saying in the verse above, Matthew 7:21 - Jesus is not so much concerned about WHAT you call him, he is concerned about whether you follow him in doing God's will.

And this raises the question: So what did Jesus teach? What was his central message?

In brief, we can summarize Jesus' teachings in the Great Commandments (loving God and loving others) found in Matthew 22:35-40, the Sermon on the Mount found in Matthew 5 through 7, and the Great Judgment found in Matthew 25:35-40.

If we read these key passages, we will notice some striking differences between what institutional Christianity says compared to what Jesus himself says. Central to Jesus' message is loving God and loving others, not doctrines of belief. Jesus doesn't mention Biblical inerrancy or salvation by faith. He doesn't even mention any requirement of believing in his impending death and resurrection. What Jesus focuses on is relationships - how we live with and treat each other. In fact, in Matthew 25, Jesus says that what determines our final destiny is not what we believe, but our actions, whether or not we have showed compassion to our fellow human beings.

Unfortunately, Jesus' message stands in opposition to much of what institutional Christianity says constitutes following Christ or being a Christian. Somewhere along the way, Jesus' teachings have been discarded for man-made doctrines and creeds that not only ignor what Jesus taught, but sometimes go directly against his teachings. The only way to counteract this is to get back to what Jesus said, to get back to following Jesus, not the religion that calls him 'Lord' but often has no use for what he taught.

At this point, we can say that a "Christian belief" is a belief that that is in keeping with Jesus' central message and focus. A "Christian belief" is a belief that is consistent with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, especially as pertaining to having compassion on others. This is what Jesus taught, plain and simple. But hard to do!

Now, some people will counter what Jesus said with the teachings of the apostle Paul or the apostle John. I would have done so at one time myself. But the Church is not "the Church of Paul" or "the Church of John", nor is it "the Church of the New Testament", it is "the Church of Jesus Christ".

If we claim to be Christians, then we MUST follow Christ. This is non-negotiable. This is why we MUST distinguish Jesus' teachings from the teachings of others, inspired and godly though they may be. None of them were Jesus! This doesn't mean that we can read only Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It doesn't mean that we can't read and incorporate the teachings of other godly and wise people. But it does mean that any addition to the message of Jesus MUST FIRST be consistent with the teachings of Jesus. If it is not, then it is not Christian, no matter who may be teaching it. This axiom applies to any belief, whether held to by you, or me, or by the apostle Paul. Jesus Christ is our standard.

So what does it mean to be Christian? Simple. It means to follow Christ. It means to know the thrust of what he taught and to put those teachings into practice. If we don't do that, then we may be members of a church, or we may be citizens of a "Christian country", or we may hold to institutional Christian teachings, but we are not following Jesus.

[JosephM]

wayfarer2k, on Apr 2 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

(snip)

At this point, we can say that a "Christian belief" is a belief that that is in keeping with Jesus' central message and focus. A "Christian belief" is a belief that is consistent with the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, especially as pertaining to having compassion on others. This is what Jesus taught, plain and simple. But hard to do!

Now, some people will counter what Jesus said with the teachings of the apostle Paul or the apostle John. I would have done so at one time myself. But the Church is not "the Church of Paul" or "the Church of John", nor is it "the Church of the New Testament", it is "the Church of Jesus Christ".

If we claim to be Christians, then we MUST follow Christ. This is non-negotiable. This is why we MUST distinguish Jesus' teachings from the teachings of others, inspired and godly though they may be. None of them were Jesus! This doesn't mean that we can read only Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It doesn't mean that we can't read and incorporate the teachings of other godly and wise people. But it does mean that any addition to the message of Jesus MUST FIRST be consistent with the teachings of Jesus. If it is not, then it is not Christian, no matter who may be teaching it. This axiom applies to any belief, whether held to by you, or me, or by the apostle Paul. Jesus Christ is our standard.

So what does it mean to be Christian? Simple. It means to follow Christ. It means to know the thrust of what he taught and to put those teachings into practice. If we don't do that, then we may be members of a church, or we may be citizens of a "Christian country", or we may hold to institutional Christian teachings, but we are not following Jesus.

Interesting that you mention we must distinguish Jesus's teaching from the teachings of others yet what makes what is reported that Jesus said any more accurate than what is reported Paul or John said. I would suggest that we really don't know if what is reported that Jesus said is really what he said.

Secondly if I do assume that Jesus said what it is reported in red letters in the Bible that he said, then one must take seriously what he said of his church. When he asked who men said he was to his disciples and Peter responded "thou art the Christ", Jesus told him "Flesh and Blood hath not revealed that unto thee but my Father which is in Heaven." Upon this rock (foundation) shall I build my church. In my view,
That foundation was hearing from God directly. Being one with Christ accomplishes this and if Jesus's church is Christianity then it is connecting with God directly. This is Christ and connecting with God directly by 'Christos' the anointing of God, not the reported teachings passed along through time and translations from man to man and church to church through the ages. Perhaps this is why Jesus wrote nothing of what he said?

Just something to consider.

Love Joseph

[billmc]

JosephM, on Apr 2 2009, 10:30 PM, said:

Interesting that you mention we must distinguish Jesus's teaching from the teachings of others yet what makes what is reported that Jesus said any more accurate than what is reported Paul or John said. I would suggest that we really don't know if what is reported that Jesus said is really what he said.

Secondly if I do assume that Jesus said what it is reported in red letters in the Bible that he said, then one must take seriously what he said of his church. When he asked who men said he was to his disciples and Peter responded "thou art the Christ", Jesus told him "Flesh and Blood hath not revealed that unto thee but my Father which is in Heaven." Upon this rock (foundation) shall I build my church. In my view,
That foundation was hearing from God directly. Being one with Christ accomplishes this and if Jesus's church is Christianity then it is connecting with God directly. This is Christ and connecting with God directly by 'Christos' the anointing of God, not the reported teachings passed along through time and translations from man to man and church to church through the ages. Perhaps this is why Jesus wrote nothing of what he said?

Just something to consider.

Love Joseph

Good morning, Joseph. You are correct, we don't know EXACTLY what Jesus said. He never wrote anything (that we are aware of). We have his teachings as seen through the eyes and heard through the ears of others.

But from the witnesses of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we do have a high degree of reliability as to what Jesus said or the kinds of things he said. For instance, none of these three gospels say that Jesus taught we should hate God and kill our fellow human beings. They agree as to the general thrust and focus of Jesus' message - the kingdom of God and the great commandments. They don't disagree about these teachings. They are "synoptic" - seen as one. So while you are correct that we don't have any dictated media of Jesus' teachings, we do have reliable witnesses and these teachings have nourished Christians down through the ages. Of course, so have the teachings of Paul and John, I don't dispute that. I just don't find Paul and John to have much to do with the historical Jesus, that's all. They are NOT synoptic. They put their own spin on Jesus.

I don't think that Christianity is Jesus' church. Sorry, but Christianity has a history of violence and bloodshed and Jesus never sanctioned any such thing. But I do think, as you have said, that we have a "direct connection" with God. Fundamentalists would disagree. They would insist that the person of Jesus (but not his teachings) are the coupler between us and God. So I think that Paul and John had a direct connection also.

But having a direct connection does not make one infallible and inerrant. And, IMO, anything we receive from our direct connection should not go against the general teachings of Jesus. If it does, then it is not Christian.

Here is what TCPC has to say about this:

"By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus."

By their own admission, this is the life and teachings of Jesus, not of Paul, or John, or Billy Graham, or the Pope, or somebody's "Christ." This is about Jesus of Nazareth. If someone wants to add to this, fine. But their addition should be congruent with the message and lifestyle of Jesus. If it isn't, then it simply isn't Jesus-centered Christianity.

Hope this helps you see my point-of-view.

Have a good day.

bill

[JosephM]

wayfarer2k, on Apr 3 2009, 07:23 AM, said:

(snip)

Hope this helps you see my point-of-view.

Have a good day.

bill

Yes. And very clearly.

Fundamental Christianity is as you portray it. When I spoke of Jesus's church, I was not speaking of fundamental Christianity but of ALL who follow Christ which is reflected in the recorded teachings of Jesus.

Now you mention the synoptics of the gospel and I have no bone to pick with their accuracy or inaccuracy yet I would say that they were given to us by the Roman Catholic church system for the most part and they were hidden from the eyes of the people for many many years. The point being that just because they seem to fit together so well does not mean they are totally accurate and were not manipulated by those in power. Now, I would agree that the teachings of Jesus as recorded in them is most excellent and deeper than the surface layer yet without a personal connection that is the foundation of Jesus's church (Math 16-13-18) as recorded he said. That church is, as you say, not fundamental Christianity as we know it today. Just a view to consider.

Love Joseph

[billmc]

JosephM, on Apr 3 2009, 07:20 AM, said:

When I spoke of Jesus's church, I was not speaking of fundamental Christianity but of ALL who follow Christ which is reflected in the recorded teachings of Jesus.

That's how it seems to me also. In light of that consideration, I think there are members of the church who have never heard the name of Jesus. They still follow his teachings because his teachings (or ones very similar to his) that come through different faith traditions and experiences that lead people to love God and to love each other. They may not be "Christians" in the technical sense of the word, but they do exhibit "the Spirit of Christ." So, to me, following Jesus is not about worshipping a person, it is about connecting to God and to others the same way that Jesus did.

But the connections will have a commonality, as butterflies have a commonality. If one person's connection says, "Go kill your enemies" and another's connection says, "Do good to your enemies," I would think it necessary and prudent to say that the first connection is not Christ-like. The second connection is.

Aren't I a mess?

bill

This post has been edited by wayfarer2k: 03 April 2009 - 10:40 AM

[billmc]

JosephM, on Apr 3 2009, 07:20 AM, said:

Now you mention the synoptics of the gospel and I have no bone to pick with their accuracy or inaccuracy yet I would say that they were given to us by the Roman Catholic church system for the most part and they were hidden from the eyes of the people for many many years. The point being that just because they seem to fit together so well does not mean they are totally accurate and were not manipulated by those in power.

Joseph, like you, I think the scriptures were manipulated by the church for their own purposes. I won't go into all my reasons for thinking so (no, it wasn't simply because I read "The DaVinci Code" ) but I am wondering what makes you think so.

Most Bible scholars, except for those on the extreme left, assert that Jesus was, in fact, a figure of history. In your opinion, does it even matter that we really can't get back to exactly what the historical Jesus said or did? Is the quest for the historical Jesus irrelevant as far as our faith "in Christ" goes? What do you think?

bill

[JosephM]

wayfarer2k, on Apr 4 2009, 09:51 AM, said:

Joseph, like you, I think the scriptures were manipulated by the church for their own purposes. I won't go into all my reasons for thinking so (no, it wasn't simply because I read "The DaVinci Code" ) but I am wondering what makes you think so.

Most Bible scholars, except for those on the extreme left, assert that Jesus was, in fact, a figure of history. In your opinion, does it even matter that we really can't get back to exactly what the historical Jesus said or did? Is the quest for the historical Jesus irrelevant as far as our faith "in Christ" goes? What do you think?

bill

Hello Bill,

A couple reasons led me to that conclusion. In order of importance and relevance to me.....
1. It has been revealed to me through what some refer to as mystical experience and others as "knowing" .
2. Personal study of the Greek language and Bible translation in the NT writings confirm this to me.
3. Study of human behavior and knowing the self plus direct experience with organizations including organized churches and the like over the past 40+ years tell me that things happening like this are not far fetched.
4. Study of other historical references indicate it to be most probable and likely.

In my view, it really doesn't matter to me personally. My trust is not in a book or reported history. Yes, it seems to me that the quest for the historical Jesus is irrelevant as far as my faith is concerned.

Love in Christ,
Joseph

[davidk]

wayfarer2k, on Apr 2 2009, 09:57 PM, said:

Yes, BUT...(you know me) we first have to talk about what we mean by God. Again, philosophy enters the picture. The kind of God that I believed in at the age of 12 no longer makes sense to me. My understandings and experiences of God have changed since then.

---

bill

Bill,
When I say God, I mean the personal origin of all else; as opposed to the impersonal (mass, energy, motion or whatever) as the first cause. That should be simple enough, I think.

"(I)t is how we approach truth and being sure that what we think we know of the world is correct. Like: God objectively exists, in contrast to His not existing. Because which of these two are the reality changes everything in the area of the answers we get to (your) questions of why we're here, what's wrong, and what's the meaning to it all."

Dk

[billmc]

davidk, on Apr 5 2009, 07:37 PM, said:

When I say God, I mean the personal origin of all else; as opposed to the impersonal (mass, energy, motion or whatever) as the first cause. That should be simple enough, I think.

Okay, I understand. I think. I guess my only reservation or concern is that, though the Bible speaks of God as a person, when taking this literally, God stops making sense to us. In other words, no person that we know of is omnipresent...or omnipotent...or omniscient. No person that we know of has always existed or will always exist. No person that we know of is immutable. So, on a certain level, God's "personhood" falls apart.

While the Bible portrays God as a person, with a mind, a will, even with hands, eyes, ears, feet...Jesus makes this bold statement that God is spirit -- pneuma, breath. So while I find the language of God's personhood appropriate when it comes to worship, I think it falls apart when we try to anthropomorphize God too much.

At the same time, I would agree with you that God seems to have attributes that are more understood as a personality than as an impersonal force or energy. God, to me, seems more like a mind than anything else I know. Note that I said "mind", not brain. The brain is a physical reality. The mind is...well...nobody knows for sure. It seems related to the brain, but it also seems to transcend the brain. So I tend to think that God exhibits personal traits like a mind would and does, but I am reticent to make the jump that whatever "essence" God is took on human form in Jesus of Nazareth. Put simply, I believe that Paul is onto something when he says, "God was in Christ..." but I think that saying "Christ is God" opens up a world of ontological paradoxes that simply don't make sense to me.

That's kinda how I see it. But I do reserve the right to change my mind.

bill