PaulS

None of the gospels actually say Jesus drank, so assumptions have to be made that breaking bread means a broader view including drinking of the vine. But then again, Mark & Mathew don't even mention breaking bread, so more than likely a later development as the stories about Jesus began to grow.

Clearly Jews (and I believe Jesus as an observant Jew) did not only think of God & Heaven as spiritual, but also physical - the OT describes Satan walking the earth before returning to heaven to discuss Job with God, Elijah was taken to Heaven to be with God in a chariot in his physical body, and Jews believed God dwelt, physically, in the inner sanctum of the tabernacle. So when Jesus prays "thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven" I think he very much means implement your Kingdom on earth just like it is in heaven - with God as the ruler and everybody living in peace, praise and worship of God. I think Jews also understood God, angels etc to share spiritual abilities too, but they were able to physically manifest themselves also. I think that's a stretch - Jesus, who is drinking wine with his disciples explicitly says that he will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until he drinks it in the new Kingdom - I can't see this being symbolism. I think that is a personal extrapolation not in accordance with what Jesus meant. Which of course you are entitled to but I think you are missing the true context around Jesus - his urgency about the message of the Kingdom, his family thinking he was crazy, people claiming him to be the Son of God and attributing miracles to him to validate his importance when they were urging others to prepare for the imminent kingdom. To me it seems too much symbolism and extrapolation of messages that were not really there, to turn Jesus' message into anything other than a physical, imminent, Jewish Kingdom to overthrow Rome and have God ruling the world.

I disagree - the context is that Jesus does see God as spiritual but very much coming in the flesh physically when his Kingdom is brought in (like God becoming physical for Moses and others at times in the OT). And whilst the descriptions may border on the ridiculous, there's a lot about religion that is considered ridiculous but it doesn't stop some from believing it is so. Jesus' own family thought he was crazy - perhaps because of the 'ridiculous' things he believed and was saying? Jesus very much understood Gehenna to be a place of extinguishing the trash - similarly he thought the incoming kingdom would extinguish those who weren't on the right side of the Kingdom. Not a place of everlasting torment, but nonetheless, a trash-burning dump that would get rid of those not aligned with the Kingdom. Jesus may well thought you needed to be born again - you just needed to be born again before the Kingdom arrived, not born again 'into' it. Yes, the context that Jesus was initially a follower of the apocalyptic teacher John the Baptist, that Jesus' family thought he was crazy for the things he was saying, that Jesus clearly thought he was going to be seeing his disciples again in the near future (after his death) to drink wine with them. The context actually is that Jesus thought that time as he knew it was coming to an end. I think too that's why the early Gospel writers attributed miracles to Jesus - "this is the guy, he is going to usher in the new physical kingdom which will overthrough our oppressors, clearly he is the guy because he has supernatural powers and can raise people from the dead". Not that they necessary believed he did these things, but they were trying to make a point about Jesus's validity for heralding in the new, physical kingdom. Jesus is clearly talking about the physicality of drinking wine with his disciples AFTER he has died. That doesn't fit with a spiritual kingdom, unless one wants to twist 'wine' into something else, but I don't think that's genuine. If the kingdom really was a spiritual thing that anybody could enter at any time as it was present, why would "...the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.… Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power” (Mark 8:38–9:1). The emphasis on 'power' is about overthrowing their cruel oppressors. “And in those days, after that affliction, the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the sky will be shaken; and then they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send forth his angels and he will gather his elect from the four winds, from the end of earth to the end of heaven.… Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place” (Mark 13:24–27,30) - a pretty elaborate description for something that has no relevance to a spiritual kingdom (coming with power and glory and sending angels ahead to gather the elect from across the earth). “Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the culmination of the age. The Son of Man will send forth his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom every cause of sin and all who do evil, and they will cast them into the furnace of fire. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun, in the Kingdom of their Father” (Matt. 13:40–43) - Jesus is making it pretty clear that the Kingdom will clean out the trash. It's simply not a 'cleansing' other than an 'ethnic' cleansing of those that don't make the Kingdom's grade. “But take care for yourselves so that your hearts are not overcome with wild living and drunkenness and the cares of this life, and that day come upon you unexpectedly, like a sprung trap. For it will come to all those sitting on the face of the earth. Be alert at all times, praying to have strength to flee from all these things that are about to take place and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man” (Luke 21:34–36) - how can something that is already there be sprung upon you unexpectedly? "For just as the flashing lightning lights up the earth from one part of the sky to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day.… And just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating, drinking, marrying, and giving away in marriage, until the day that Noah went into the ark and the flood came and destroyed them all. So too will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17:24; 26–27, 30; Matt. 24:27, 37–39) - again, pretty clear about destroying those that don't meet God's standards for the Kingdom. No cleansing of those outside the few elect in Noah's day - just destruction. In short, I don't find your version of the Kingdom convincing at all. But I must say I am fairly convinced by the arguments put forward by Bart Erhman in his book "Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium". To me, it makes Jesus' message, how others thought of him immediately following his death and how their views changed/developed when he didn't return to bring in the kingdom as promised, much more sensible.

Here's a few Joseph: “Truly I tell you, you will see the Son of Man…coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). “For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." (Luke 22:18) “I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." (Matthew 26:29) "Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God." (Mark 14:25) “Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of that one will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.… Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power” (Mark 8:38–9:1). “And in those days, after that affliction, the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the sky will be shaken; and then they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send forth his angels and he will gather his elect from the four winds, from the end of earth to the end of heaven.… Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place” (Mark 13:24–27,30). “For just as the flashing lightning lights up the earth from one part of the sky to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day.… And just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating, drinking, marrying, and giving away in marriage, until the day that Noah went into the ark and the flood came and destroyed them all. So too will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17:24; 26–27, 30; Matt. 24:27, 37–39). “Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the culmination of the age. The Son of Man will send forth his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom every cause of sin and all who do evil, and they will cast them into the furnace of fire. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun, in the Kingdom of their Father” (Matt. 13:40–43). “But take care for yourselves so that your hearts are not overcome with wild living and drunkenness and the cares of this life, and that day come upon you unexpectedly, like a sprung trap. For it will come to all those sitting on the face of the earth. Be alert at all times, praying to have strength to flee from all these things that are about to take place and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man” (Luke 21:34–36). “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14:62). “Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, and he sits on his glorious throne” (Matt. 25:31).

I get that that is your take on Jesus, Joseph. I'm just not convinced that is what Jesus intended. To me, it seems the opposite really - that he thought the Kingdom was an imminent, physical, happening - and that the 'take of other men' is what became of Jesus' Kingdom when they were left scratching their heads after his execution. To me, that doesn't make Jesus any less enlightened in a number of other things he said, just wrong on one of the main things he thought was going to happen. Clearly, I'm not as convinced of the existence of this 'spiritual kingdom' as you are, but that's okay with me. I enjoy trying to understand how and why others do and I enjoy trying to better understand what Jesus might have actually been about.

Thanks for the read Burl. Again, I find the explanation of 'prophecy fulfilled' as lacking and more a case of the first Christians trying to link Jesus to statements from their scriptures. But again, which apostolic fathers in particular were you referring to when you said "It goes back to the Apostolic fathers and is still standard Orthodox teaching, so it's about as early as one can get."

It's also clear in numerous places that Jesus' words are about a very real and physical Kingdom and not just one of spirit, that his Kingdom is coming and it will be very much of this world when it gets here and God puts Israel in charge. But I'm sure we agree the historicity of what Jesus actually ever said is open to debate.

Quite possibly Joseph, and there is a lot of good things to be said for meditation in a number of ways, but I'm not sure relying on it for a historical understanding of the world is a reliable one.

The interpretation of the event reported as Pentecost as being the coming of the God's Kingdom that Jesus preached, is open to interpretation. Apostolic Fathers - which ones in particular are you referring to that support this notion?

Again, I don't think that was the version of the Kingdom that Jesus was preaching but rather it became a later interpretation of his words.

Just don't expect the world, Thormas - I'm only human too!

I for one would like to continue with the thread to discuss reason, first principles, our experience as a reflection of the universe and causality (or not). Please continue Rom - you've done a good job so far starting off a valuable discussion. Hopefully others will continue to participate in the spirit of this thread.

All rules have teeth and nobody is given free reign here to insult or put down. And certainly, not all is fair game, ever. Sometimes comments may get a little heated or ruffled, but as mature adults we can work through these things without having to always take action for the slightest infraction. So I would suggest at this point that we all just be conscious of our comments and how they can be interpreted by others and that we try to refrain from needling others or having a go at others. Thanks to all in advance Paul (As Administrator)

The average length of a giraffe's neck is actually 6', so it seems that reason has already be done away with just in this meme alone.

That's a fair enough view Joseph, but I actually think it's the other way around - I think Jesus was preaching an imminent, physical Kingdom and when that hasn't occurred, writers over time have put a twist on exactly what was said and come up with this different Kingdom. That certainly seems to be Erhman's scholarship on the matter (but he could be wrong too). It does makes more sense to me though to think of Jesus going on a 3yr ministry in a pretty hard core nature, and a preparedness to die perhaps for his beliefs because he simply saw death as a very short term inconvenience before the Kingdom became ushered in and he (and many others) would imminently be restored.

I think the only thing we can be 'sure' about, is that the GOT differs from the synoptic gospels, but I doubt we have any way of really telling which might be more accurate concerning Jesus. We can say that the version of Jesus presented in the synoptics won the day because somebody/s somewhere decided these were a better reflection of the Jesus story, but we don't really know why or how this decision was made other than we can speculate that it seems this version (the synoptics) was favoured by those of the day that made the choices. We can say that it may have been supported by 'oral tradition', but the fact is we just don't really know. Rightly or wrongly - I'm not sure we can ever accurately 'know'. We do know that there were quite a number of different takes on early Christianity, so maybe the GOT is 'just another take' on Jesus. Maybe it is more accurate than anybody realises. Maybe it is the most accurate but least popular of the takes on Jesus' life? Unfortunately, at this point in time we simply don't have any evidence to accurately portray where it stands on the scale of accuracy about Jesus.

No problems with me. Not sure of any other axioms that should be considered. Looking forward to the discussion - I think it'll be fun to discuss.

Rabbit hole or not, you do appear to be wilfully ignoring the logical arguments that are being presented to you and repeatedly deny they mean what they mean, even when they demonstrate that you are not aligned with Dawkins understanding of his own understanding. If you say you are not deliberately trying to misrepresent Dawkins in this instance I will accept that. I think 'pattern' is too strong a word for my response, but maybe I have done that in the past. But to use your phrase, if it quacks and looks like a duck.... I agree you never said Dawkins said one can know God - it was a typo on my part as I left off the word 'exists'. I must have deleted it when editing. I have reincluded the word and I trust the sentence reads better now. What I was refuting is your statement that Dawkins says "it seems that on his scale one can 'know' God doesn't exist" - that's not the case at all. On Dawkins scale one can believe they do or do not know God exists (and there are several positions in between) - actual 'knowing' is irrelevant (in the sense that the word know means to have knowledge or information to substantiate - e.g. proof). Dawkins is not saying anybody does or doesn't 'know' as though they do or don't have proof, he is referring to the degree in which one 'believes' they know. You say your point is that Dawkins is closer on the scale to strong atheist - all I would say to that is that this was not your point when the conversation took this direction and to say that now does seem to be a weakening of your previous position. You have been adamant that Dawkins is a 7, even though Dawkins' scale draws a distinction between a 7 and a 6 (and logically anything in between 6 and 7 would also have minute differences perhaps). But the main point of all of this is that Dawkins is not talking about some indisputable, chemical equation that argues with the laws of the universe. He is simply demonstrating that the degree to which people believe they know of the existence of God does range across a scale. There are two extreme ends and a bunch of points in between. Dawkins makes it clear that he is NOT all the way to one end but admits he is very, very close. That is a distinction which you have made clear you don't accept. His book the God Delusion is an excellent piece and I would again encourage you to enjoy it. I used the term chasms as a turn of phrase, much like one might say two positions are miles apart - how many miles precisely? 1, 3 81? Of course it can't be one because I have used the adjective in a plural form. Please accept my apologies for my incredibly poor form in the nuances of the written English language. To clarify, I mean chasm, singular, but this chasm is exactly 1 million miles from side to side, so it is a very, very large chasm. You say I gave nada, but I hope my exceptionally large chasm is adequate to demonstrate to you the point I am trying to make between what you are saying and what Dawkins is saying. To say you believe God IS, rather than to say you believe you know God exists is semantics to me. Belief & knowledge in this Dawkins' instance are rolled up into a ball here and I would suggest you 'believe you know' God IS. I don't believe you know in the sense that you can prove God IS (as you would agree I'm sure), but I think you believe you know, hence why you say you 'believe' God 'is'. But if you don't get Dawkins in this regard I doubt you are going to get me or Rom. So for me, again we are in a position of having to agree to disagree (is that a pattern?). I don't have the patience of Rom here trying to help you understand Dawkins' scale. So for me, this is the end of the conversation, but clearly you can reply and/or continue - I'm just taking a breather from it that's all. Time to go crabbing in fact!

No, Dawkins does NOT say one 'can' know God exists but rather his scale is describing where one sits in relation to how certain one believes they are concerning the existence of God. It's not about proof or disproof - it's about how convinced one is that they do or don't have proof. He states that a 1 represents those who say they KNOW a theistic God exists and a 7 represents those who say they KNOW a theistic God doesn't exist. There is no relevance of 'can know' on his scale. Who says the 'true' agnostic position is a 50/50 mix? Certainly not Dawkins and he doesn't say that in the video. Is this your interpretation? Dawkins is explaining his scale because he proposes that one can place estimates of probability on 'these things'. Dawkins says he calls himself an agnostic, he simply says that he's definitely not the type of agnostic that has a 50/50 position on belief in God. He may be at the atheist 'end of the scale' but he is clearly drawing a distinction between those who say they are 100% certain a theistic God exists and those who say they are 100% certain a theistic God doesn't exist. Agnostics and atheists of varying degrees get placed along his scale. Perhaps it might be clearer if you read his book the God Delusion and understand his scale further than just this video perhaps? I've included a snippet of his scale below for further clarification. No, Dawkins simply is NOT saying he KNOWS God doesn't exist. He makes it clear that he is very much up toward that end of the scale for sure, but he makes it very clear that by not putting himself at 7 he is acknowledging that he DOES NOT KNOW that God doesn't exist, he just thinks that on the scale of probability, he thinks it is very, very unlikely, almost all the way (but not quite) to the point where one says they KNOW God doesn't exist. Out of interest, where do you think you sit on Dawkins' scale and your position for a Theistic God? Dawkins' Scale: 1.00: Strong theist. 100 per cent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

Rom's case is rock solid on this Dawkins' point and I'm not really sure why you feel you have to stick with your incorrect assumption/interpretation of Dawkins' video, Thormas. It is black and white that Dawkins' point is that he is very confident God does not exist and currently sees no reason to believe in any sort of God, and that he leans very heavily towards 'knowing' there isn't any such thing a God, BUT, he admits he cannot prove that, so he leaves an appropriate amount of room between 'knowing' and 'not knowing'. I believe he makes this clear distinction of not being a 7 precisely for the point that his integrity doesn't allow him to say he is a 7 because he knows he cannot prove that there isn't something called God that is yet to be revealed or understood. Full marks for his integrity. Not sure why you would spend your time defending a blatant misrepresentation of what Dawkins says. I consider my self a reasonable person and I think what he says is quite reasonable without determining his 6.9 to mean 7. It might be only be 0.1 but they are chasms apart and that's the point Rom has made.

There could very well be some truth to that Rom. Perhaps those who have had religious faith are more likely to believe in other 'beliefs' due largely to their nurture and/or perhaps due to their genetic makeup. My very general experience as an adult now 50 years of age is that most people I have worked with and gotten to known have almost one of two distinctly different trains of thought in this area - those who have had faith before but have moved on from that particular faith still seem to hold on to 'something', whereas those who did not grow up with faith seems to have no consideration at all for other 'speculative' beliefs (be it ghosts, other religions, spirituality, etc). That's just my personal observation.

Sounds good. Kick it off if you like.

I think where it is denied is when synoptic gospel writers start interpreting the Jesus story as prophecy fulfilled, as Jesus as a deliberate sacrifice, when John starts calling Jesus God and the Son of God, etc. Because what Jesus had told them about the coming Kingdom did not happen, they started to make up other stories. They denied the reality that Jesus was about and created new stories based on their own interpretation. Common Christianity does not look at the Gospels and other NT texts like that - they preach it and abide by it and sell it as the 'truth' about God and Jesus. That's why I say Jesus' truth is denied. It's not surprising that Christianity went down a certain path as a result of influences by Church leaders and 'the masses' as you say (which weren't much of a 'mass' for several hundred years after Jesus). They may have believed things different to Jesus I'm sure. But where this conversation started was with you questioning why some people who don't align themselves with Jesus' teachings would refer to themselves as Christian (or something like that). I was just pointing out that typically what Christianity today teaches as Jesus' teachings, aren't, in many, many ways. Personally, I'm not sure if ALL immediately following Jesus' death considered him to be the Son of Man returning in glory soon or not. It seems biblical scholars are divided on whether Jesus regarded himself as the Son of Man or not too. Jesus possibly only thought he was empowered to deliver the message and wasn't in fact the Messiah to come. Paul clearly had some differences of opinion with the early Christian's basing themselves in Jerusalem - perhaps they extended to who they regarded Jesus to be also? Teacher/rabbi is a term often used in the NT, so clearly some regarded him as wise. No argument. Probably more than we realise. I don't know how you can be so certain about the disciples, but I won't argue with you, and I agree that later generations (in only decades after Jesus' death) reinterpreted Jesus when he didn't return as expected. Jesus' primary view of God was viewed through a lense of the imminent arrival of the Son of Man, which didn't happen. I don't think that remains intact at all. I'm not sure how that can be ignored whilst people perhaps say "but the rest is all okay". I mean will the meek inherit the earth now that the Son of Man is not coming imminently? Should I really hate my family and only love God, even though that God isn't imminently coming as Jesus said he was? If Jesus was wrong about a major plank in his God belief, what else was he wrong about? Side note - I think there is a difference to what Jesus believed and what words attributed to him that we may take as inspiration or guidance. I don't deny that some things he spoke of give people direction, inspiration and even hope. But that doesn't mean they are 'gospel' is my qualifier. Acknowledge Jesus' was wrong. Be honest about biblical scholarship and history. I'm not saying you're turning a blind eye but Christianity in general, does. Progressive Christianity is a step in the right direction and maybe eventuality the rest of Christianity will see the light. Maybe not. That's fine, if we acknowledge theism as a speculative sport with no correct answers. As PC's we acknowledge that Jesus is NOT the only way to understanding the Divine. 'Theism' per se allows all sorts of theories about God to develop based on how others and ourselves think, interpret, get influenced by others and feel 'spoken to' about such matters. I have no issue with people deciding for themselves that they see Jesus as fully or truly human, but I think that is simply their interpretation of the matter. I don't think Jesus was any more fully human that you or I - warts and all (but nobody talks about Jesus' warts!).

Absolutely. It was a bit of fun and discussion on my part wondering about the real Jesus, but you're right - it is a dead end.

I think so too. And I also agree with Rom that whether we call it a kingdom or not, the lack of separation in our existence means it exists whether one wants to view it as a kingdom or whether one simply wants to view it as the reality of our existence. But I do think it is different to the impending Kingdom that Jesus was warning people was imminent and the need for them to repent before it was too late. In the Kingdom you, Rom & I seem to be referring to, there is no 'too late'.