BillM

No, I haven't, Ron. What is the focus of Tabor's approach, to resolve the "conflicts" between Paul's gospel and Jesus' gospel?

>>To the question fact or fiction, while a historical study seems to shed some light for some or many individuals, It seems to me that we may never know and perhaps it is more important that we examine or apply teachings and use what makes sense and works for us when applied diligently. Much agreed.

I sympathize much with that view, Joseph. Jesus' best teachings are common to many of the religions of the world and they are "true," regardless of who said them. But one of the questions that the "historical Jesus" scholars are trying to address is: what teachings in the scriptures actually do go back to or come close to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth? There are, obviously, at least two layers of Jesus and his teachings in our Bible. The first layer is something of the historical Jesus - who he was, what he said, what he did i.e. the real person. The second layer is the confessions of the early Church which elevated Jesus to God status and gave him mythic (and mystical) teachings and personhood i.e. the Christ of faith who is no longer human. Simply put, the Christ of faith was at least superhuman -- born of a virgin, walked on water, multiplied loaves and fishes, stilled storms, rose from the dead, walked through walls, could disguise himself, flew through the sky to return to God. He is not human as we understand humanity. And his teachings are mostly found in the gospel of John where the focus is on himself and the exclusive necessity of believing in him. That is where we find the "I am" statements and Christ's claim that no one comes to God except through him. This "Christ of faith" is still meaningful to many, perhaps most, Christians as they desire a God to worship. But other moderns find this "Christ of faith" and his claims quite unbelievable. The historical Jesus, by contrast, is one of us. The focus of his teachings is not on his personage, but on God's kingdom, on wise living in order that heaven might come to earth. He gets tired, he doesn't know everything, he is in anguish in the Garden, he cries out asking why God has forsaken him on the cross. He and his message are, for the most part, quite believable. And worth imitating as a way of relating to God and to one another, through compassion. Lastly, many Jesus scholars say that this work is necessary because Jesus was an actual person in history and that, as difficult as it may be to get to the actual person, what he said, what he did, if we don't make that effort, than the "Christ of faith" becomes anyone and anything we want him to be. In their view, the "Christ of faith" is a product of the early Church's deification of Jesus of Nazareth which turned him into a heavenly Ceasar who becomes, in a practical way, a genie that Christians can appeal to to intervene and do miracles for them. The "historical Jesus" is a much more challenging figure who calls us to personal and social repentance in order to allow for transformation. Anyway, Joseph, this is how many Jesus scholars see the subject and why they feel it necessary to pursue the "historical Jesus" quest. We can, of course, agree or disagree with what they are doing and whether or not it is meaningful. All I can attest to is that it has helped me in my life to find a more "believable" Jesus. I don't slavishly follow the historical Jesus, I just look to his teachings for insights as to wise living. BillMc

Those who attempt to study the "historical Jesus" (I'm fascinated by this subject, but very much an amateur at it) say that "facts" about Jesus of Nazareth are not really available to us. They claim that what they work in is "probabilities," i.e. Jesus probably said this, Jesus probably did that. The methodology of the Jesus Seminar embodies this approach to the "historical Jesus." So, when it comes to facts, about all that can really be said (although there are some who even deny this), is that he was crucified by the Romans, and that he was, therefore, obviously born. Nevertheless, there are great strides being made in the area of "historical Jesus" studies that attempt to get back as close as possible to Jesus of Nazareth, what he said, what he did. Many modern "Jesus scholars" make it a point to try to differentiate between the "historical Jesus" and the "Christ of faith." Some say that the historical Jesus is unimportant (the apostle Paul seems to hold to this view). But Christianity is a still a historical religion that is supposed to be rooted in a person who really existed in history and who somehow made a difference in his time and culture. So there is a growing swell of people (Christian and otherwise) who are trying to rediscover, as much as they can, who Jesus really was and what he thought was important. No easy task. But worth it to many (including myself) that find the "Christ of faith" to be more and more unbelievable in the context of the modern worldview. Here is a link to a community in Canada that is focused on the historical Jesus: http://www.questcentre.ca/ Regards, BillMc

I'm pretty much with Karen on this, the view that Jesus was trying to reform or distill Judaism down to what really mattered. For him, it all came down to loving God and loving others, to the Golden Rule. The apostle Paul reflects this in Romans 13:10 when he writes that love doesn't harm its neighbor, so love is the fulfillment of the law. As has been mentioned, some see this passage as Jesus reinforcing the Levitical code with its 613 laws, perhaps making it even tougher for someone to think they are justified before God. Others in the Christian tradition think that Jesus' death somehow ended the Mosaic law and gave the Jews (and humanity) a New Covenant. I personally have my doubts that Jesus, being a Jew, would have seen his death in this way, even though some early Christians obviously did. For me, what Jesus was saying is that what the Law was really meant to do was to admonish the Jews to be in a faithful, loving relationship with God and with each other, but that it is easy for legalistic rules to supplant relationship. So Jesus was getting to the "heart" of Judaism in saying that his "Way" of living with personal and social compassion was what the Law was trying to point to all along. And Jesus takes it a step further (as does Paul) and says that we inherently know truth in our hearts as God's children, Jewish or not. It all comes down to the Golden Rule. All the major religions know this. So it's not so much that Jesus was teachings something "new" as that he was reminding his hearers of what they had known all along, but their religion had clouded. My 2c.

That's awesome, Karen. I, too, would believe that gesture would make Gene proud. At it's heart, Star Trek has always been about finding "family" in the least expected places. I hear the new movie will be big on that theme. It's great to know that JJ Abrams knows that Trek isn't just scifi or just entertainment, but a hope for a better humanity and a better tomorrow that we all long for.

To Neon Genesis: I apologize if my post came across as meaning that I thought that you were personally dishonest. I in no way meant that. I think you are a sincere and compassionate person, regardless of your personal "theology" or lack thereof. If you are a Christian Atheist, all I am saying is that I don't understand that category. I don't understand how it works. So please forgive my ignorance. What I was referring to is the penchant that our culture has to label things "Christian" (music, performers, entertainers, careers, bumper stickers, books, political candidates) without ever considering what that might mean, especially in the light of Jesus' best teachings. Jesus said that there was a cost to following him, but in our day and age, there is also a great deal of money to made off the label. 76% to 80% of Americans say that they are Christians (Protestant and Catholic), and yet America as just as prone to war, violence, ignoring the plight of the poor, and ignoring social issues as if it were pagan. So, yes, I question what kind of "Christianity" this is where it cost us nothing and leaves us and our country/culture unchanged. But that is another subject in which I could get myself into trouble in short order. Anyway, I didn't mean anything derogatory toward you, just that I don't understand. As I said, my ignorance. Peace. Regards, Bill

Joseph, From the UUA FAQ at http://www.uufaq.com/ "Eventually our movement evolved beyond what one would consider a Christian church." Again, it's not about superiority, it's about differences.

Where have I said anything about Jesus and his teachings on divorce? Where have I demanded that we must follow everything about his theology? As I've said previously, it comes down to weight. Although I haven't talked about it before, was Jesus' central message about divorce law? Was that the focus of his ministry? Was that his gospel? Or was his gospel about responding to God's love and the offer of the Kingdom. about loving one another? I'm not a fundamentalist. The only thing that I am "fundamental" about is saying that I think Jesus' teaching on loving God and loving others is central to Christianity. And for that, I get rebuked here on this "Christian" forum.

No, George. You are reading more into my post than what is there. The UUs are honest to their own convictions. This in no way implies that all others are dishonest. I am simply advocating for moderation. I don't think that, as seems to be implied here, a person can believe absolutely anything they want to believe and expect others to take their claim to be Christian seriously. If I claimed to be a Buddhist but knew absolutely nothing about the Buddha, his life, or his teachings, how seriously would people take my claim? Or if I claimed to be Buddhist but said that I didn't hold to Nirvana or Enlightenment, would most Buddhists take me seriously? You yourself said: Would it do to say that someone who sincerely identifies themself as a Buddhist is a Buddhist, even if they rejected the Four Noble Truths or the Eight-Fold Path? When it comes to Christianity, even you think that there must be *some* content to the label and that it "would almost certainly entail a theology..." Theology is a study of or belief in deity i.e. God (gods). IMO, this certainly doesn't make Christians or Christianity any better than others, it just makes them different. Distinction, not superiority. All I'm asking is, if an atheist DOESN'T believe in God (which most affirmed atheists don't), why would they want to wear the label that says that they follow Jesus who DID believe in God? What would they want to gain by calling themselves Christian if they reject Jesus' central teaching, the teaching that Jesus called the Greatest?

George, the UUs are honest to their own convictions. The powers that be within their organization made the decision that they are not a Christian organization. Given that they are reticent to speak of God or Jesus, yes, I think they were wise to drop the Christian label. As to the label itself as it is used here, George, until such time as TCPC tells me what it believes a Christian is, all I have to work from is my own definition based upon what I believe Jesus taught.

True, NG. The early church had to deal more with polytheism than with atheism. ...who said it while standing on one foot. Jesus probably also melded it together from the OT. The wise amongst us know that truth is truth no matter where it comes from. Weight. The weight of the teaching and practice. In other words, Jesus' teachings and practices have more to do with loving God and loving others than they do with, say, the correct form of baptism or the Lord's Supper or church growth or Paul's gospel of easy-believism. The majority of his parables, in some way, portray God as a broken-hearted lover longing for relationship with his creation or with how unjust and uncompassionate people can be with one another. This was his religion, calling people back to loving God and loving one another. I think we do have to cherry-pick the teachings of Jesus. I believe Jesus was a man anointed by God, not a God-man who knew everything. So I can disagree with Jesus that epilepsy is caused, not by demons, but by physiological problems in the brain. But I agree with him that religion comes down to loving God and loving others. For me, to "cut out" Jesus' take on epilepsy doesn't affect the centrality of his message or ministry in the least. But to "cut out" his teachings on God does. It is the difference between removing a wart and amputating a leg. Sure it can, NG. But doing so is excision of the majority of Jesus' teaching (it is still cherry-picking) as Jesus had a lot to say about God, his and our father. I don't at all deny that we can take the Jeffersonian approach and cut up the gospels, removing every reference to God from the teachings of Jesus. But how much would be left? Again, I agree with you, NG. I don't hold to this kind of supernatural theism either. And that is, perhaps, the point. There are different kinds of theism. We don't have to pick only supernatural theism or no belief/experience of God at all. I suspect that atheists (at least the outspoken kind) reject supernatural theism, which I do also. But for whatever reason, they know of no other way to believe in or experience God than supernatural theism, so they claim that God doesn't exist. For me, Christianity comes down to loving God and loving one another. In fact, I'm reading a Methodist book right now called, "Three Simple Rules", which says, in essence, "Do no harm, do good, stay in love with God." Isn't this what Jesus did? I think our world would be a better place if we did this. In closing my part on this subject, I've been to a couple of UU churches in my area. They were...nice. They were welcoming. They said nothing offensive. But they didn't mention God, not even one time. Neither did they mention Jesus, probably because he did talk about God so much. But I'll give the UUs this much, they were honest. They don't call themselves Christian. Christianity was the roots of both the Unitarians and the Universalists. But except for very small pockets, the UUs are no longer Christian because God and Jesus are no longer their focus or message. I respect their humanitarian efforts and think they put many Christians to shame when it comes to social action. But I wouldn't call them a church or a religion. I'm not condemning them at all, just saying that I don't think they, in the best sense, "follow Jesus." They have intentionally left that behind. Perhaps this is what "Christian atheists" want to do also. I don't know as I don't really know any. I just think the term is, on the surface, an oxymoron, and that it requires more explanation than it is worth. If, for some people, it just comes down to "do no harm, do good", that is certainly a worthy and laudable thing, is it not? Thanks for listening and for the conversation, NG.

Much agreed, NG. This is one of the reasons that, for me, I don't turn to the OT or to Paul's writings as often as I do to the gospels. Yet, some of Jesus' own teachings are quite harsh and condemning, aren't they? Again, much agreed. I just haven't found many of them who wear the label "Christian atheist". And to those Christians (those who say that gays can't be Christian) I would ask, "Where does Jesus talk or teach against homosexuality?" If the issue wasn't central to Jesus, why make it central to Christianity? In the first place, NG, I just said that it wouldn't make sense to me to publically wear the label, "Christian atheist." My reason (and perhaps mine alone) is because I think Christianity *should* come down to, as Jesus said, loving God and loving others. Remove either of those two things and, for me, Christianity is gutted, it's had its heart cut out. On a certain level (that of humanism), I suppose it doesn't. How we treat each other (love one another) is very important and if Jesus' commandment in following him was just this and this alone, then I suppose this whole subject would be mute. But Jesus also spoke of loving God along with loving others. So if Christianity, at its best, does or should come down to loving God and loving others (at least as Jesus taught it), then it seems odd to me to remove one of these tenets from the equation. In my opinion, that is what atheism attempts to do. They want Jesus, but not God? I'm just not sure how that is done or how "Christian" that is.

I don't know, NG. Again, it comes back to what we mean by "Christian" doesn't it? For me, I'm a big believer in (and, hopefully, a practicioner of) Jesus' Great Commandments. It may well be "cherry-picking", but I think these are the heart of his teachings. If they are, then for someone to say that they don't believe in the God that Jesus said we should love just doesn't make sense. Does it to you?

Perhaps so, Joseph. It would be interesting to do a study of Jesus' own conceptions of God (his view, not Christianity's view) and his relationship to/with God, and then to compare that to most atheistic concepts of God. For instance, did Jesus believe that God was an interventionist, or did he believe that God was an enabler? Did Jesus believe that God has personal attributes or did he believe that God was an impersonal force, a ground of being? Did Jesus believe that God had a will, or did he believe that we are accountable only to ourselves for our attitudes and actions? If, after such considerations, we did conclude that Jesus had certain conceptions about God which guided his life and teachings, then we would need to consider whether or not we think Jesus was wrong or deluded about his conceptions. If we conclude that he was, then it certainly leaves the door wide open for us to reject his notions of God in favor of ...fill in the blank with any definition of God that we like. If we think him in some sense right as a reliable pointer to God, then perhaps Christianity would do well to "get back to Jesus" and discuss what that entails. But I don't find it sensible to say, "I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in God." To me, that's like saying, "I'm a Christian, but I don't find anything about Jesus or Christ relevant to my life." What is the point of labeling the jar "pickles" if nothing inside the jar resembles pickles?

I agree with you, Dutch. Jesus, being a good Jew, did not shy away from God-talk or God-language. God and God's kingdom were, according to the gospels, the centerpieces of Jesus' ministry and message. In this sense, and just speaking for myself, I don't know what is to be gained by wanting to claim the name of Christian while discarding the two central realities that seem to be at the heart of Christ himself. Christianity, for all of its faults, has always claimed to be more than a philosophy or a moral code. It has, for better or worse, made the claim that Jesus somehow reveals or mediates God to us. For many Christians, Jesus is the "way" to God. Metaphorically, Jesus could be said to be a sign pointing to Philadelphia or a road leading to Philadelphia. The atheist has typically concluded that Philadelphia does not exist, thereby, IMO, insinuating that Jesus doesn't point to or lead to anything real. So I question what it means to call one's self a Christian or a follower of Christ while saying that God doesn't exist. I don't at all deny that some of Jesus' teachings are good philosophy or decent morals or laudable humanitarian practices. But in my opinion, to be a Christian is more than this. Granted, progressive Christianity is involved in the process of sifting through what has been handed down to us in the Christian religion, valuing what still makes sense, what is meaningful, what is worth keeping. And I think it does well to continue the God-talk and the God-language in reconsidering who/what God is and what God means to us. But, again in my opinion, it is quite another thing to dogmatically state that God does not exist and then to assert that this, too, is Christian. My feeling on this is that if such a thing is possible (Christian atheism), then it exists outside of what Jesus taught and showed us of God. And this may well be the case for many "progressive" religions who have "outgrown" the teachings or the views of their founders or chief teachers. This is probably why, for many progressive Christians, it is not so much that we are still Christians as it is that Christianity was our roots. So, again, we have this wonderful and challenging process of "test all things, hold to what is good". And many of us have let go of such things as original sin, substitutionary atonement, the submission of women, the damnation of homosexuals, the threat of everlasting torment, etc. I'm just not convinced that we should let go of God-talk and God-language or to go to the extreme (IMO) of saying that God does not exist while saying that we still takes Jesus and his teachings seriously, that we follow Jesus, but we don't believe in God. I don't know how to make sense of such a statement.

In my opinion, NORM, this question cannot be answered on THIS board. Why? Because not only is it a question, as Dutch has mentioned, of who or what God is, but it is also well-known to many of us "old-timers" that this board will not define who or what a Christian is. As George has mentioned, those who identify themselves as Christians are allowed to do so here without others questioning their beliefs, doctrines, dogmas, or life-styles. So because there is no agreed-upon consensus here of who/what God is or who/what is a Christian, it's my opinion that the question cannot be answered. But I also think that the question is, no offense, relatively mute. Though Christianity has (and probably should) have something to do with Jesus, Jesus himself never taught it. As you've mentioned about some Jews, Jesus taught a "way", a lifestyle. Now, the question can be asked, "Did Jesus believe in, relate to, and worship God?" and I think the scriptures are pretty clear that, yes, he did. If that is the case, then the question becomes "How much should we be like Jesus?" and believe as he did? That's a question that, I suppose, each of us must answer for him- or herself. For instance, I believe in the reality of God as love, but I don't agree with Jesus that epilepsy is caused by demonic posession. I agree with Jesus that we should love our enemies and seek their highest good, but I disagree with him that God will burn his enemies in unending conscious torment. Was God, as the NT claims, the source of Jesus' power and words and ministry and message? Or was Jesus simply operating out of a higher consciousness within? Or was all of the "God stuff" invented later and read back into Jesus and his ministry to make him marketable? Who's to say? But what I would say is this: if we look at the character of Borg's pre-Easter Jesus, yes, atheists can and do exhibit that kind of character. They can be "Christ-like" every bit as much as self-professing Christians in exhibiting the "fruit of the Spirit" that Paul talks about in Gal 5, without any of the doctrines and dogmas of Christianity. In this sense, to me, actions speak louder than beliefs.

Hi Karen. Gary Seven. Hmmm. Definitately an interesting and mysterious character. Of course, since Star Trek has been "rebooted" (I'm quite loyal to the original canon), they can bring in anyone and anything they want. Trek, as a show, has always had villains that reflect, in some way, the fears of the times. Given this, what things cause us the most fear in 2012 and how might they be "characterized"? Terrorists? The end of the world? The re-election of Obama (ha ha! sorry, I couldn't resist)? Genetic engineering? Our consumer culture? More alien invasions? Our paradoxical immediate connection with one another via technology but loss of personal, face-to-face interaction? What fears of modern culture would make good Trek villains?

For me, I don't think Jesus was a trinitarian, so I'm not either. He seemed to believe in and relate to one God. Enough for him, enough for me.

Probably so. Modern apologetics has been around since the Enlightenment when faith and science began to butt heads and those in positions of authority in the Church started giving reasons for faith. However, religious education has, until very recently, been pretty much restricted to men. It's only been in the last few decades that women were allowed in the pulpits and this is still forbidden in the most conservative sectors of Christianity that put the most weight into apologetics. To put it another way, these sectors might ask, "Why train women to be apologeticists when they are forbidden to pastor and teach men?" But there are some women out there like Phyllis Tickle, Karen Armstrong, Elaine Pagels, Diana Butler Bass, and Karen Ward who are making strides, not so much in apogetics, but in progressive theology and orthopraxy.

I like that, George. Thanks.

Hi Dutch, That “pregnant God” image still works fairly well for me though I have to admit, at first blush it sounds rather strange. It seems to me that Christianity at its best has always tried to balance God’s immanence with God’s transcendence. Pantheism tends to stress God’s immanence, but because in this view all of nature is God, there is no Moreness to God. Supernatural theism tends to stress God’s transcendence, but because God is seen as separate from us and the world, there is no Nearness or Withness to God. Granted, supernatural theism uses immanent language occasionally, as God shows up for worship services and there are certain holy places and holy items and holy times, but I still find that the basic structure of supernatural theism is that God is not here and not much involved except in answer to prayers. One of the weaknesses of supernatural theism is that what we used to call supernatural is now considered natural. For instance, it was once thought that storms and other weather phenomena were caused by God. We now know that the weather has more to do with high and low pressure systems and the earth’s water cycle than it does the finger of God. Similarly, it was once thought that diseases were a punishment from God on the wicked or the unrighteous. We now know that many are caused by germs and genetic factors as well as bad choices in what we put into our bodies and where we place our bodies. So the “supernatural God” shrinks as we discover more and more how things we once thought were controlled by an omnipotent God are just part of the created order, the way things work. The weakness of both pantheism and panentheism, in my opinion, is that they both have to embrace the suffering and evil in our world as somehow part of God. If God is truly here with us, then it seems that God is not much concerned in using God’s omnipotence to change our world for the better. It seems that God has left that job up to us. The way these play out in my prayer life is that I am no longer a supernatural theist and pray for God to “do” things. As a panentheist, I believe it is my responsibility to be active in the world, changing what I can for the better. So my prayers are more centered on seeking wisdom, guidance, opening my eyes and ears to things around me, and, of course, being thankful for life and all it brings. I don’t pray for rain or for loved ones to be healed of sicknesses. I just can’t do that anymore as I don’t think that form of prayer “works.” I realize most Christians would disagree with me, but that just how I feel based on my observations of the efficacy of petitionary prayer. So I see prayer as being more about asking God what I can do than about asking God to do something.

George, I think it is important, when it comes to a topic such as this, to differentiate between different types of theism i.e. supernatural theism and panentheism. Both are theism, but they see God and God's relationship with/to the world quite differently. I'd agree with you that supernatural theism tends to view God as omnipotent and as intervening in (and suspending) the natural processes of the world in order to answer prayer or accomplish God's will. In this kind of theism, evidence for God is viewed through the suspension of the laws of the universe and/or violating what makes sense to us or how the world works. Supernatural theism posits that God is not here and therefore must break into the world. Panentheism, on the other hand, tends to view God as enabling potential or influence that works in and through the natural processes of the world. So prayer is more aligning ourselves with the influence of God toward life and love then it is trying to get God to do something. In this kind of theism, evidence for God is seen in the natural laws and processes of the universe and in the observation that there are somewhat consistent patterns or cycles to things. Panentheism posits that God is always here, that we are in God, and we look for and join in with God's work in the world.

For me, I'm not so sure that the spiritual goal is to believe in God as much as it is to experience God. To me, God is not something to be believed in nor something to be proved, but the Reality in which we live and move and have our being. As an example, I never see myself as taking God to someone. In my opinion, everyone is already in God. What I would do for a spiritual seeker who might be curious about God is to point to experiences in their lives that seem to point to God, the More, the Sacred. These experiences might include such things as awe, compassion, a sense of justice, our ability for good and great relationships. Then I would simply suggest that these things are not simply the products of evolution, but that they have a Source in something More i.e. they are not just human inventions or developments. If the person is open to more God-talk at that point, then it is fairly easy to show how these experiences were also common to Jesus and his view of God. If the person is closed to further God-talk for whatever reason, then, as Joseph has said, there is no need to force the issue as the person already has some experiences that are somewhat transcendant. If people are happy with their philosophies, Paul, and they are good and do good, then there is much laudable there, much to be praised. On the other hand, as Yvonne has said, some people, for whatever reason, do long for or desire what might be called a deeper spirituality. That is where God-talk can be helpful.

For me, I guess whether I "let it be" or not depends on how much harm I think could either be done by someone holding to a different view. Does their view or holding their view bring harm to others? For instance, back when "88 Reasons Why Christ Will Return in '88" was going around, a lot of my Christian coworkers were jumping on that wagon and warning people to be "rapture-ready." Other than the mild annoyance, this was something that I "let it be." The date came. It passed. No one went up that I know of. On the other hand, my wife's aunt and uncle were big into the Y2K fear that swept the country in late 1999. Being futurists, they were convinced that the Y2K bug was going to put the events of the book of Revelation into motion. They sold or gave away most of their posessions, sold their house, and moved in with their daughter and son-in-law to await Jesus' return. When that didn't happen, they found themselves homeless and a burden to their grown children. They had donated much to church organizations in hopes them some "false believers" would be left after the rapture to help people through the tribulation. In cases like this, is it best to just "let it be?" So though I can't deny that subjective judgment is used, I tend to weigh how much is at risk when people hold to what, imo, are faulty views. If holding the view brings no harm to anyone, why make a big deal of it? But if views seem to have the potential to damage ourselves or our world, I doubt I could just "let it be." For me, I see times in the scriptures when indeed Jesus "let it be", but there were other times when he certainly called for repentance and change. Wisdom is knowing the difference.