PaulS

I think we are on the same page. I use the word 'purpose' to simply describe my 'existence'. The fact that I exist is my purpose. There is nothing special about 'the Divine' it's just another word to explain our oneness and existence. I understand if one uses the term purpose to define some sort of 'drive' in life, some sort of reason, then that indicates something 'causing' that. But I think what I'm saying is 'my reason is that there is no reason'. The oneness is simply our existence and there isn't anything outside of that. Does that make any sense?

I guess just one, because without an atom one can't be at all? I'm not sure what you're saying about divine - I do think everything is divine and there is no separation. I must admit I don't quite understand why you're quoting Campbell. I think we are all one and that the term God is simply used to represent that one-ness. Obviously other people don't see the term God in that sense.

Not sinister - just reality. Of course it's no secret to PC, but it is denied in traditional Christianity - most Christian churches simply don't preach Jesus being wrong about the coming Kingdom and neither do they speculate that what was later written in the NT as just somebody's thoughts and opinions. Those who are lucky enough to belong to more open-minded churches may experience this better understanding, but by and large, Christianity regards the NT as the word of God and believe rather passionately that what is written is truth about God. No, not the opposite - it became cult worship of Jesus after he didn't return in that generation as expected. That's when Christianity started to morph into cult worship of Jesus and Jesus started to become God. Up until then, Christianity was nothing more than Jesus revealing the coming of the Kingdom and possibly believing or being believed to be the Son of Man who would be heralding it in. You've just come a bit further forward in the story than what I was saying - I agree that the immediate followers of Jesus in the first few decades after his execution, expected God's impending reign to arrive but when it didn't, Christianity started to become something else - a Jesus cult. Yes, Jesus was wrong. The disciples may have been faithful to 'some' of Jesus message when they reinterpreted things, but clearly the main thing that Jesus believed he was there to do, his life purpose, was to warn of the impending kingdom and encourage repentance before it was too late, was simply wrong. Jesus primary view of God coming to reign was wrong. So to ignore that but still say Christians are aligned with Jesus' views of God, is a stretch for me. But I agree, it was and is completely human to make interpretations, assumptions and conclusions on things one might passionately believe in when the evidence doesn't stack up for it as it was previously understood.

I've been to a few churches in my time - never came across one that preached Jesus being wrong about the Kingdom. It was an intentional twisting, but in regards to making sense of what hadn't actually come to pass as Jesus had preached, not a deceitful interpretation - we seem to agree on that. You seem to agree that the early Christians needed to find a new way of viewing Jesus (in contrast to Jesus' actual message about the Son of Man heralding in the Kingdom imminently) and from there, stories were made up about Jesus, new 'interpretation' of his message and stories were concocted and a different path was chosen. Hence why I am highly sceptical that we have anything like a genuine portrayal of Jesus, in his fullest, in the NT. Christianity became cult worship of Jesus rather than about preparation for the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God to overthrow Rome, as preached by Christ. Once the Kingdom didn't come, Christian needed to develop a new Christianity. What was a cult became legitimised eventually when the Roman government endorsed it hundreds of years later. I have no issue with the NT 'speaking' to people if it offers them some sort of peace/sense/meaning for their lives. I'm just saying that I don't think for a minute that this was the original intention of the person who sparked it all - Jesus. So to me it seems odd that Christianity so strongly aligns itself with Jesus' beliefs, as those beliefs are actually different to what traditional and mainstream Christianity understands and even preaches today.

Nobody is asking for your agreement. You have presented a very strong case for why thinking about the 90% of Jesus' life, that is not captured anywhere, is of no consequence. It certainly looks like a defence of your understanding of Jesus, but of course you have the right to comment. Nobody is saying you don't have that right and I am truly glad that you will continue to do so on this or other threads when you want to. My only point in the above is that your argument was all about why there is no need to speculate about Jesus' life influences, role models, life experiences etc outside of the tiny life span we get a glimpse of in the NT. I beg to differ and hoped this thread would encourage others to discuss and speculate along with me. If you don't want to do that it is entirely fine with me - just not sure of your point in this thread then was all.

I just like to remain open-minded about things we don't understand, and dark matter is one of them. Perhaps it is unlikely, but I can't say I consider something we don't understand not to be a possibility about something we don't understand.

The nuance you are missing is that it is not a rejection of the 'idea' but rather a rejection of what is currently on the table. Should evidence ever actually become available, then I expect the idea of God would be reviewed. I probably lean more toward panentheism than pantheism. And of course it's not my intention to say that you can't call yourself a Christian - I'm just recognising that a major plank in the platform of the man Christians worship so dearly, is completely ignored by the religion that developed following the death of Jesus. Not just ignored, but twisted and bent to mean something entirely different to what their figurehead meant and believed.

That's fine if that's enough for you - it just isn't for me, and I like to ponder what else might Jesus actually be like. If I were to regard somebody as the embodiment of being truly and fully human, I'd probably like to know what guidance they can provide on living life - like how to manage a marriage, how to raise children, how to behave during active combat for your nation, how to deal with political ideologies in a democracy, how to deal with criminals in society, etc - I could make a list with a thousand bullet points but I just picked a couple to get the conversation going. But no problem if you're content with the Jesus presented in the NT and don't need to have any consideration for his influences, role models and experiences in the greater than 90% of his life than is portrayed in the NT. I don't think they speak 'volumes' as I think they are just snippets that were either left in or just scraped in to the NT. Logic demonstrates that lots of life's occurrences for Jesus, in fact by far the majority of Jesus' life, was left out of the NT. You don't care about what's missing, so no problem - not sure why you would want to participate in this thread then. Do you feel the need to defend Jesus, or your beliefs in Jesus, to some degree? I raised the thread for those who DO wish to speculate. You'd rather just shut me down and say "nothing other than what is portrayed about Jesus in the NT matters". Why? All things I speculated on? I've made some bullet points to get the conversation going. It is precisely the growth process, the life experiences of Jesus that I am trying to speculate and discuss here. You have made it clear that you have no interest in Jesus' formative years or influences, so I am not sure why you wish to continue speculating that none of these could have possibly had an influence on who he was. It is precisely the growth processes, the twists and turns of Jesus' life that I was asking people to discuss. I am not saying one thing is bad and another thing is good - I'm not boxing in Jesus like that. I was simply framing the opportunity for people to feel free to discuss things that they may think Jesus did, liked, didn't like, didn't do, carried himself in his youth, etc etc. Yet you seem to be about defending this Jesus who really, you know nothing about other than what was represented of him, by biased authors, who only wrote during a brief period of his life (roughly 10% of it and even then, who perhaps only captured a minor window even of that 3-yr period). Again - I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend rather than consider or speculate on the remaining 90% of Jesus' life. If it simply doesn't interest you, then no problem, no need to contribute more on the matter I guess. It's not that interesting really - 'sin' came from human thought, so not really a surprise that one can easily relate what is natural to what became a religious icon.

No, I didn't know you were kidding. Not sure why you would be - I consider it a possibility too, although minute. Nonetheless, the unknown is the unknown.

I consider it purpose in the sense that I am part of what simply 'is'. Yes it just is, but my 'purpose' is to simply be part of it and ride the experience. It doesn't 'drive me' per se, but because I am, I will make the most of being. I agree the human mind is determined by its environment - but for all intents and purposes I am alive and experiencing life. May as well enjoy it.

I think you are missing my point. In short, I think we have been handed a glorified version of Jesus, written by faithful adherents who have a desire to paint Jesus and his message in a particular way. So in essence, I suspect there was an awful lot more to the 'real' Jesus than what is portrayed in the NT. But we don't have that. So I was simpy interested in other people's speculation about how Jesus may have been. I don't think there was a 'cover up' per se of an alternative Jesus, demonstrated by several glimpses of very human behaviours of Jesus that did make it into the NT (cursing the fig tree, losing his cool in the temple, speaking down to non-Jewish 'dogs', etc), and I think it would have been entirely natural for Christian writers/editors to leave out or edit out the bits that didn't quite paint the 'Jesus of Love' portrait that was largely the picture painted. I'm not saying Jesus' words and actions that we do know of aren't paramount, I'm just asking about the words and actions that we don't know of and entertaining the notion that if this 'fully human/truly human' ideal is not perhaps a bit of biased reporting, when in fact Jesus' fully human-ness may actually be more human that what we care to consider. I couldn't care less about 'sin' because I don't believe there is any 'sin' per se. We do things - they have consequences - whether those consquences are seen as positive or negative is perhaps the closest I get to calling something 'sin'. Perhaps I am unique in this regard then. Although, certainly a couple of thousand of years ago the author of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas felt there was a need to document Jesus' childhood. Maybe it's just me and that single author then who are the only people in the world that like to think about what influences a great person and makes them become who they become.

So you're not actually living in the kingdom, but just getting glimpses from time to time? Can anybody fully live in this Kingdom? Do you know anybody who is fully living in this Kingdom? Or is the best that anyone can hope for is to simply 'touch' it from time to time? Or perhaps you have hope that in some point in the future, in this life or an afterlife, that you will actually get to fully experience this 'kingdom'?

By definition atheists have a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of God - but this is very different to rejecting the very idea, the very possibility of God. They are simply saying they don't believe unless evidence to their satisfaction is provided. Of course there are more militant versions of atheism, just as the term Christian ranges across a vast universe of beliefs and behaviours relating to Christianity. Most atheists in general would probably not use the term God to describe community, human interaction or movement in time. I'm not really sure what word they might use and don't want to speak on all of their behalves. But this atheist, me, is more than happy to use the term God to describe how I think we, in a fully human way (as I believe that is the only way we can be), are and can be. Further, the 8 points of Progressive Christianity don't exclude me from that way of thinking because: 1. I do believe some of Jesus' teachings can lead to an awareness of the oneness and unity of all life, which to me can be called sacred. 2. Jesus' teachings provide 'but one' of the many ways to experience this sacredness and oneness of life 3. I do think we should seek community of all people, whether conventional Christians or questioning skeptics 4. I agree that the way we behave towards one another speaks volumes of who we are 5,6,7,8 - I agree with all, word for word. You might be able answer that yourself - Jesus was clearly an apocalyptic preacher who believed the Kingdom of God was imminently arriving and that God, through Israel, would soon rule the planet (in the actual generation of his time). If you don't hold this belief about God which Jesus held, why would you call yourself Christian? It seems to me that what Christianity ended up becoming (a Jesus cult) is vastly different to what Jesus actually believed of God in many, many ways. Take the good bits by all means, the love and caring stuff which I think is a good message, but that alone does not accurately fit Jesus' belief of how to understand God. It seems that Jesus' apocalyptic understanding of God gets conveniently overlooked. Jesus also referred to God as 'Father' and even 'Abba' which is an even more personal term for Father. It is pretty clear that Jesus viewed God as a theistic entity sitting on a throne in a realm called Heaven and he believed in all the bells and whistles of the Son of Man arriving on a cloud to herald in the arriving Kingdom of God. Again, if your beliefs don't align with Jesus here, why do you call yourself Christian?

Bart Erhman's view (Sep 2017): The very first thing that Jesus is recorded to have said in our very earliest surviving source involves an apocalyptic pronouncement of the coming Kingdom of God. In Mark’s Gospel, after being baptized by John and tempted by Satan in the wilderness, in neither of which is he recorded as having said anything, Jesus comes into Galilee with an urgent message: The time is filled up and the Kingdom of God is almost here; repent and believe in the good news! (Mark 1:15) I take this to be an adequate summary of what Jesus himself actually preached. The saying about “time being filled up” is an apocalyptic image. Recall that for apocalypticists there were two ages of history – the present evil age that was running along its predetermined course and the glorious age to come in which God would establish his sovereignty once and for all. For Jesus, the time of this age was all but complete; the bottom of the sand clock was nearly filled. This age was near its end and the new Kingdom was almost here. People needed to prepare by turning to God and accepting this good news. Later Christians, of course, took this very term “good news” and applied it to the accounts of Jesus’ life itself – especially the accounts of his death and resurrection. The same Greek word that I’ve rendered “good news” is translated “gospel” elsewhere. But obviously Jesus wouldn’t be urging people to believe in his own death and resurrection when he had just started his ministry – hence my translation. He is urging people to accept the message of the good news, that now, very soon, God is going to intervene in history and bring in his Kingdom. What does Jesus mean when he speaks of God’s coming Kingdom? This is a question that has plagued New Testament scholars since – well, since there have been New Testament scholars. I won’t go into all the ins and outs of the debates here, but instead simply emphasize a couple of the significant points. For one thing, almost all scholars today would agree that when Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God, he is not referring to “heaven” – in the sense of the place that your soul goes, God willing, when you die. To be sure, the Kingdom of God has some relationship to “heaven” as the place where God is enthroned; but when Jesus talks about the Kingdom, he appears to refer principally to something here on earth – where God will at some point begin to rule as he already does rule up above. This is in full keeping with the Jewish background to Jesus’ life and thought. For throughout the Hebrew Bible, there is constant talk of the God of Israel being the King of all people and establishing his rule for them. God is the king of all the earth; sing praises with a psalm. God is king over the nations; God sits on his holy throne. (Ps. 47:7-8) The LORD is king, he is robed in majesty; The LORD is robed, he is girded with strength … Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting. (Ps. 93:1-2) Moreover, when Jesus refers to this coming Kingdom, in which God will reign, he does not appear to be thinking in purely symbolic terms about God becoming the ruler of your heart. For he often describes the Kingdom with graphically tactile language. Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God “coming in power,” about people “entering into” the Kingdom, about people “eating and drinking in the Kingdom” with the Jewish ancestors, about his disciples serving as “rulers” of the Kingdom, sitting on actual “thrones” in the royal court. Truly I say to you, in the renewed world, when the Son of Man is sitting on the throne of his glory, you (disciples) also will be seated on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt. 19:28; cf. Luke 22:30)o And there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom, but you are cast out; and people will come from east and west and from north and south and recline at table in the kingdom of God. (Q: Luke 13:23-29; cf. Matt. 8:11-12) Such references are scattered throughout the tradition, and rather than writing them off — for example on the grounds that we ourselves don’t imagine that God will actually, literally, establish a kingdom here on earth — we should take them seriously. Jesus, like other apocalypticists living before him and afterwards, evidently thought that God was going to extend his rule from the heavenly realm where he resides down here to earth. There would be a real, physical kingdom here, a paradisal world in which God himself would rule his faithful people, where there would be eating, drinking, and talking, where there would be human co-regents sitting on thrones and human denizens eating at banquets. This future kingdom stands over against the present evil kingdoms to which God’s people are now subjected, kingdoms of hatred, want, and oppression. In the future kingdom, God’s people will be rewarded with a utopian existence. No wonder Jesus proclaimed the coming Kingdom as “good news” to those who would listen. But it wasn’t good news for everyone – not, for example, for those who were already in power. For when the coming kingdom arrived those who were in power now would be overthrown. And the day of judgment was soon.

Just curious, do you believe you are experiencing and living the kingdom right now?

It depends on what you want to define as God. Your definition is different to mine I suspect, so of course you see me as seeing God as not, as you do with atheists. Yes, I am by strict definition an atheist - that is, I do not believe in a theistic God. When we start talking about 'God' being community, how we interact with one another and our environment, how we move along through time - then I would argue I do believe in God - it's just that my definition of God doesn't fit with yours or some others I guess.

So if one believes that God 'IS' something, albeit that something significantly differs from what Jesus believed God to be, then you're okay with them calling themselves Christian? Or do you use some other measure to determine when they're belief is close enough to Jesus' belief for them to call themselves Christian? Don't get me wrong - I understand your dilemma in deciding when somebody can or can't call themselves Christian - our language and use of words does have limitations and at best we try to use those words to categorise and communicate a common understanding. So naturally we try to narrow definitions down so that we can communicate. But to me it seems by your own logic, if one believes in anything 'other' than what Jesus did, how can they call themselves Christian? Can one be 80% Christian, 40% Christian, even maybe 15% Christian and still call themselves Christian. Where do you draw the line about what is 'completely other' than Jesus belief? It seems to me you are saying "if generally people believe something like Jesus did, then using the title Christian is okay, and even if they disagree with some of Jesus' beliefs, a little bit of disagreement is okay. But if they disagree with Jesus 'too much', then the label Christian isn't appropriate". I'm not having a go at you, for me I am simply recognising the difficulty in deciding who is in the right camp and who is not, when it comes to people calling themselves Christian

He was a grown man for a lot longer than is portrayed in the NT, so I'm not just asking about his childhood. In fact, by far the majority of his adult life is missing from any record anywhere. It seems to me that only a certain 'side' of Jesus has been presented (his Ministry) which naturally leads to the suspicion that the authors wanted to portray a particular version of Jesus and not necessarily include the bits that might contradict their 'Jesus message' (although we see glimpses of these contradictions with stories that show another side or sides of Jesus - as one would expect quite frankly of a human being). For me, when some Christians hold Jesus up as a shining example of what it is like to be fully human, I just find it too simplistic. The Jesus portrayed in the NT naturally meets all the wonderful criteria people worshipping a figure would be expected to portray. It's the bits in between that I am more interested in - what did Jesus 'really' do, who was he 'really' as a man, how did he carry himself when not in the public eye, etc. Again, admittedly it has to be pure speculation because we simply don't currently know. Maybe one day some genuine previously unknown writings will be discovered that may shed further light (favourable or not) on the Jesus legend. Again, one can only speculate.

Possibly, or we could be raising the time honoured practice of God-of-the-gaps.

Which is why I am curious what people may think of the 'unknown' Jesus. Like you say, a lot of stock is put into the writings of the Gospels and Paul about who Jesus was, with no confirmation outside of those few writings we have (let alone their accuracy). So to take that small speck of his life and decide Jesus was the penultimate human seems a huge jump for me and doesn't at all seem to stop and ask the questions about anything else to do with the other 30+ years of Jesus' life. If one is to have that much trust in their understanding of Jesus then surely they have stopped to consider how he might have handled all the other human things that would have occurred to him in a normal human life (love, sex, risk-taking, career, teenage years, etc).

I understand there to be two 'types' of Kingdoms discussed in the Gospels. There's the Kingdom of God (Theos) which is spiritual and what you are referring to from Luke. But Matthew discusses the Kingdom of Heaven (Ouranos) mainly which is about a physical, earthly, Heaven-like kingdom. Not heaven itself, but a Heaven implemented by the coming of the Son of Man, on earth. Whilst the NT may use the terms interchangeably, because in some ways they are one and the same thing, there is a difference between entering the Kingdom of God now and entering or being in the Kingdom of Heaven at some later date.

An elegant article which helps explain why I see so much more to life without feeling the need to believe in a traditional Christian 'God' as determined by the human mind. https://designluck.com/the-purpose-of-life/

After leaving traditional Christianity I always wondered about what Jesus and his real existence was actually like. By real, I mean the extensive part of Jesus' life that we know nothing about - We only have a snapshot of a very, very brief period of his life provided to us in the Gospels and the NT in general, yet traditional Christianity tends to have a pretty certain model of Jesus and some would say that Jesus was the perfect man (human). I always wondered about the details that were never provided and how Jesus may have actually been in real life (as opposed to perhaps only favourable versions of him portrayed by adherents). For example: did Jesus ever lose his cool, as most everybody I know has done at some time or another? as a teenager, was he ever rebellious to his parents as every male I know has done at some point in their youth/adolescents at least? did Jesus ever get drunk? did Jesus ever have a girlfriend in his younger years or was he ever keen on a girl? did Jesus masturbate, as most males do at some point (or regularly) in their lives? Was he a virgin at his death? did he ever swear, get angry, I understand it is speculation, but do others care to speculate what the rest of Jesus may have been like outside of the pretty portrait minimally portrayed?

Except little else in Joel's so called 'prophecy' can actually be linked to Pentecost. Of course many Christians can twist this prophecy to fit their pre-beliefs, but a proper reading of Joel will clearly demonstrate that the things Joel talks about were simply NOT fulfilled at Pentecost. Joel was referring to other things and not this Pentecost later seized upon by some Christians. Some Christians jump to the conclusion that Joel's prophecy was fulfilled because of one, single, similarity between the prophecy and the alleged events in Acts, that is the 'outpouring of the holy spirit' but this is a very narrow interpretation of such prophecy fulfilled. Some elements of Joel's prophecy that were not fulfilled at Pentecost include: There was no outpouring of the holy spirit to 'All Flesh' as Joel requires Sons and daughters weren't prophesying as Joel states young men weren't seeing visions as Joel advises their old men weren't dreaming dreams in line with Joel's prophecy servants and handmaidens weren't prophesying as required by Joel's dream and also the several physical elements of the prophecy - dark sun, blood moon, smoky mist etc etc. Further, the signs that Joel writes about are to be seen 'after the day of the Lord' and not before. A lot more has to be done according to Joel until that 'day of the lord' is reached, and Pentecost simply wouldn't cut it for Joel as having reached that point in time. And it is not a two-step process, although some Christians like to turn it into that to make it fit their purpose. Joel is clear that his prophecy, in full, will occur at a single, particular point in time. Once again this story seems more like a reaching back into the OT by NT writers to link their beliefs to Judaism rather than an accurate fulfilment of a prophecy made about soemthing else hundreds of years earlier. But if it makes you happy...

I questioned it because you seem to box Progressive Christians in to only two choices - either they must believe the world is to be reborn or they must believe in a movement to a higher consciousness/ a higher state of being (event though you question what those terms actually mean). I'm just suggesting the 3rd choice - you are already fully human - just do the stuff that is better for humankind moreso than the stuff that is not as good for humankind. Or don't. The consequences speak for themselves.