ResurrectionBeliever

I used to be a very conservative Republican. I didn't have very much compassion for others because all I did was gripe about was how the government wanted to take away what was rightfully mine. "Everyone in the U.S. has the same opportunities. If someone is poor, it is their own fault...blah, blah, blah." I also felt that capitalism was the best thing for the world. However, this viewpoint made me even less compassionate for others. Capitalism requires each individual in society to look out for his own best interest. The result is plenty for everyone. While this may make a society wealthy overall (like the U.S.), it results in a narcicistic one. Take a look around - conservative evangelicals are just as selfish and greedy as everyone else. (I know I am speaking very generally here. I know that there are compassionate conservatives that go out of their way to help others, but I believe that this generalization is basically true.) I know that the statement that Jesus is neither Republican or Democrat is a cliche now, but I believe that it is a true one. IMO we must all try to evaluate our own selfishness and learn to think of others before ourselves, rather than the capitalistic other way around. This is hard in America. Putting too much of our trust in politicians is very dangerous because - well, because they're politicians.

Good conversation. I will spare any comments because I learn something new about politics and religion every day. There are so many different ways to approach this - I'm afraid to say anything definite for fear of a change of mind later. Has anyone read "The Politics of Jesus" by John H. Yoder?

Jeep, Thanks for the book suggestion. I'll check it out. Zenchiku, How are you defining the words "faith" and "belief?" What is the difference between these words? I agree with Zenchiku that Jesus was an icon of God (of sorts). I agree that the gospels (not just John's) portray Jesus as "God with us." The arrival of the Jewish messiah was representative of God returning to Zion, God coming to deliver his people, God intervening to save mankind, God bringing judgement, etc. In this way, Jesus did arrive as the image of God. Now (of course much of this is semantics), to say that Jesus = God and to say that I can use the words interchangably whenever I wish is a different matter. It is somewhat difficult for our linear mind to grasp the way of the ancient mind. To say "Jesus is God" or "Jesus = God" are two different things, in my opinion. Jesus was God in the sense that I mention above. Jesus does not equal God, as Jesus himself points out. RB

I've been reading writings on the 1st Council of Nicea, as well as Elaine Pagels' Beyond Belief. It is so interesting how current orthodox beliefs on this subject were formed over 1,600 years ago. The notion that "the Father begat the son and thus the son had to have a created beginning" (rough paraphrase of comments from Arias at the council) was snuffed out as a result of the 1st council. Also, comments from Arias and any existing secret writings (writings that were deemed uninspired by the majority) were declared evil and supposedly destroyed at the command of Constantine. The gospel of John is unique (though some would say that Paul alludes to it in Php. 2) in that it portrays Jesus as God. Is this a fact, or simply a creative/poetic way of portraying Jesus? I think that the answer hinges upon each individual's view of the inspiration of scripture. What writings existed at one time that may have depicted a different Jesus? Some would say that everything that was inspired by God was preserved at this 1st council. Were the decisions of these men those of God? As you can tell, I have all sorts of questions as a result of looking into this. I am therefore in a state of indecision on this question. I am attempting to unlearn everything that I have been taught so that I can look at this objectively. RB

FMB, You make good points. I agree with you that to look at something historically is a difficult matter and that to put all of the emphasis on a "these are the events as they occured" approach can result in closemindedness and exclusivism. This type of biblical literalism has done much damage for the cause of Christianity. As far as the ancient stories/myths that you listed are concerned, I have a strong interest in attempting to understand the mindset of ancient "myth-believers." One thing seems certain: Those who originally read and told these stories believed them to be true. Western scientific thought doesn't approach things the same way. It requires proof before belief. The ancients seemed to put as much trust in stories as we do in facts. Very interesting. Though I'm not quite as open-ended about the subject as you are, I appreciate your input. RB

Great response pacigoth! N.T. Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God is an amazing book. It has helped me know what to do with the resurrection. I think that I agree with you on just about every point. I'm interested to see if there are any other views on this topic. It is my opinion that questions 7 & 8 (as you have them) are the ones that most Christians today are misguided by today's evangelical base. In general, Christians seem to have the Platonic view of the afterlife. An even higher % believe in an other-worldly place of bliss called heaven. It is sad that this gnostic view is the common view in the Church. Jeep, I'm not sure what you are talking about in regard to the topic at hand. What is this "short-cut to the answer of [the] many questions about the resurrected Jesus?" What surmises are you talking about? RB

kgillion, I'll second the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible. I have the 2nd edition with the Apocrypha, which is out of print now. You can still find them on christian book distributors' website at a very reasonable price. I like the 2nd edition because it has wider margins to write notes in. All translations have bias in them. It is practically impossible not to have any, which stinks. The difficult thing about translating from Greek to English (not to mention the various Greek texts that may vary slightly) is that Greek words do not always have an exact English word to represent them (which is true of all languages). Translators must choose the word they feel is either the most exact or a phrase of words that gets the author's point across. This is why many Bible translations have alternative readings as footnotes. This helps, but sometimes there are several alternative ways of translating a sentence. It would be too difficult to list all of them in our Bibles. The KJV is not used very often by scholars because it did not use the most reliable Greek manuscripts. Many more reliable manuscripts were uncovered after the KJV was composed. It is just not a very reliable translation. The problem is (unless I'm mistaken), the New KJV actually used the same Grk manuscript. Too bad. Hope you find the best one for you (unless you want to learn Greek instead). RB

To all, Thanks for this forum. I have been searching for Christian websites that are dedicated to seeking to redefine Christianity in terms of critical biblical scholarship, open-mindedness, and the emerging "post-modern" culture. I have found this site quite helpful. My question is this (thanks, pacigoth13): What are your thoughts concerning the resurrection? This question could venture down many different avenues. Consider some of these subquestions: How did 1st century Jews view resurrection? Was Jesus' resurrection physical or spiritual? Literal or metaphorical? Real or fabricated? What were the early Christian beliefs concerning Jesus' resurrection? What were the early Christian beliefs concerning a future resurrection of their own? Does the future resurrection of believers result in a life here on earth or a life in an other-worldly place called heaven? I can't wait to here your views. RB

DeborahDp, Your initial post mentioned the death, burial, and resurrection. Paul does, in fact mention this. A good book on the entire topic of "resurrection" is The Resurrection of the Son of God, by N.T. Wright. The virgin birth, the inerrancy of the Bible, biblical myth, etc. don't concern me as much as the topic of the resurrection. I would agree with most of the replies that the Bible was not written for the reason of recording "history" or documenting absolute truth. However, if you take away the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth or label it a biblical myth, much of the theology and reason for Christianity is taken away. Any thoughts (anyone)? RB