romansh

Yes Paul. There are "people here that would call themselves Christian but for whom it doesn't matter whether Jesus actually lived or not". Amen.

 

We can be followers of men or followers of that which is greater. Even Jesus is recorded as saying that the words he spoke (and for that matter the works he did) were not his own. To me , that would make his words and actions greater than the man.

Can someone be called [or even is a] Christian even if that person has never heard of the concept, Christ or even Jesus?

So being Christian is it a set of beliefs or a set of visible actions? Some combination?

So Paul ... for me.

We can spend a lot of time interpreting the past texts in terms of today's understanding.

So depending on where we put our weight in "faith", the present or the past?

For the past forty five years I have lived my life without a need of religiosity. Even my life before that was a curious mix.

Today ...while definitely not religious in any of the worldly senses, I am in a semantic sense. One of the many etymologies of religion the meaning to reconnect. Now reconnect to what? To God, society, mankind, love? For me it is to the universe. We somehow see ourselves as separate. And yet we are not. We are part of the universe unfolding and indeed in some sense we do unfold the universe too.

Thormas,

 

I slowly found out as an adult that there were people who called themselves Christians that didn't take the bible as literally as the denomination that I grew up in - I was gobsmacked that they existed! They certainly weren't in the saved category and "they will find out one day" my Mother would say!

Thormas and Paul. In your experiences, do you find the majority of self described Christians believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin and was resurrected in a literal fashion? For many Christians this is an absolute minimal belief. Having said that for me the relevance historicity of Jesus becomes irrelevant. Did Socrates exist? Interesting debate but what is important (to me), the thoughts and ideas handed down in his name or is it his historicity?

I understand PCs are exempt from the requirement of these beliefs.

The question for me is not what Jesus or some ancient scribe meant in the Biblical text (though it is interesting and possibly relevant) but it is about how we should interpret it today and reconcile it in the light of two millennia of collective experience.

It's called humor Rom, humor. A bit of light banter in the midst of some more serious sharing.

Oh it's not the humour I find strange ... "knowing Jesus" etc seems strange to me.

This conversation sounds strange to my ears.

but I do not believe the gospels are history or biography as commonly understood - or at all.

So accepting that the NT is not "history" ... which is fine. So what were the later scribes trying to tell their contemporaries back then?

The historicity of Jesus or the degree of historicity is not an issue, at least for me.

The question becomes is the NT (and other religious texts) a useful source of metaphors in today's world? Or are we just interpreting the texts through the lens of contemporary values?

You demonstrate my point Burl ... any more contemporary evidence corroborating the accounts in the New Testament?

 

There are obvious 'inclusions' from a later Christian writer but enough to suggest, perhaps establish the existence of the man.

 

Others, will have to check, it's been a while.

Don't get me wrong, It is awhile since I read Did Jesus Exist, Bart if I recall correctly believed he was 90 % certain Jesus existed. While I am not sure how he could calculate such a number, I get his drift. Having said that, this is not an issue for me. Nor is the historicity of the NT. While I think it is poor and should be taken with a pinch of salt; the point for me is what where the later scribes trying to say and what in their environment that was causing them to say what they did.

Ehrman must mentions them in his book, for example Josephus. Actually more a contemporary of Mark and, I guess, Paul, having fought in the Jewish Wars before his capture.

Yep ... I will give you Josephus. He was born just after Jesus's death ... I gather he did not write that much and at least some of what was written is contested as his?

Not exactly Bernstein and Woodward. Any other contemporary references?

I remember during the days I was interested in the "historical Jesus" reading some claim that he was in India at some point. Convincing? No, but the book shelves groaned more deeply.

 

Seriously, for better or worse I actually read through the thread I linked, and must say how relevant much of it was with regard to the "Pistis Christou" thread and its "alternatives".

You might enjoy the Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Jesus's Childhood Pal by Christopher Moore. It is novel based primarily on the time Jesus "went missing" from Childhood to his crucifixion ... basically chronicles his travels through the Eastern cultures. A bit raunchy, The story treats Jesus respectfully, but everyone around him is less than "perfect". If you liked Douglas Adams you may well enjoy this novel.

​I could not believe an American could write in a humour style that was so English.

Rom,

 

what do you mean by contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus?

Writers outside of the scriptures contemporary to Jesus.

ps I have read Did Jesus Exist?

​I don't recall Bart citing any contemporary evidence for Jesus. Though I do recall him providing a little bit of evidence for a contemporary Nazareth ... which up to about 2009 was scant to non existent. (2009 from memory)

Rom,

 

Perhaps you misread. Jen believes that jesus was literate, I allow for the possibility in that we will simply never know - but given the work I cited, the probability is very slim (1% or less) that he was. I lean to the opinion that he was not literate.

 

As for the existence of Jesus, there are external sources and I refer you to Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The answer from this agnostic, biblical scholar and historian is a resounding, Yes!

Not really ... I was just cautioning against the use of the word proof ... unless you want to use in a legalistic (balance or probabilities, reasonable doubt) or in a logical/mathematical sense (where one's axioms are well developed).

The rest of my post was agreeing with you and wondering about the necessity of the truthiness of the Jesus story.

It's like wondering how real Winston Smith was in 1984 ... it potentially misses the whole point.

We have nothing Jesus wrote, so we cannot prove he did (didn't) write anything but given the literacy rate, the odds are against it. I think, even if he could, he was too busy especially if his ministry was only 1 year.

Proof? Corroborating evidence perhaps?

Do we even have a Biblical claim that Jesus was literate?

One of the concerns I have is that we have little contemporary historical evidence of Jesus's existence. OK we can take the various Gospels etc as evidence but the evidence is a little circular. Also a similar argument can be advanced regarding other historical characters; we might be a little circumspect about them too. So for me the questions becomes how literally should we take the New Testament ... if at all? While the historicity of the Jesus is an interesting debate, to me a more interesting question becomes what were the later scribes trying to say or were they just trying to document the history they inherited?

"Again my take, for me: existence is real." That's fair enough, Rom. My purpose is not to convince anyone else of my perspective, which is more of a question regarding the nature of things. We could get into what we mean by "real", but that would be engaging more discursive thought than is required. In the end, I think any definition of what is "real" will end in a meaningless tautology.

I get it Steve ... I am not making claim as to what is "real" ... only that there is a real. And if there is no real ... that too is reality.

I don't have beliefs

So you believe?

To say that existence such as this is "real" is simply false. If we mistake the impermanent for the permanent and eternal, we are mistaken. Can we still say that in this condition we observe what is real?

Again my take, for me: existence is real. My access to it is limited and incomplete; and much, if not all of it, is not what it seems. Illusory.

Nevertheless my perceptions are a reflection of existence and at times that reflection may be distorted or at least the perception is distorted.

And a "good" starting point for looking at illusions is when I use the words "I" or "my". I think of myself as real and illusory.

These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

But that is the problem...existence is neither real nor true...from a Buddhist perspective! "God" or gods is actually not relevant.

 

Steve

Oh I suspect Buddhists would by and large disagree with you. They certainly could agree that existence might not be what it seems.

Be careful, Burl might be asking you what you mean by God or gods and then carefully explaining they are not accredited.

As a clarification I can safely say ... I don't believe in god or God.

Also I can safely say I actively disbelieve in many forms of God ... and as Burl rightly portrays these are forms are likely false anyway.

There are two gods I do not actively disbelieve in ... a pantheistic god ... ie god is synonymous with existence. Seems sort of pointless to disbelieve in existence. And the other would fall into the category of gods I have not thought of yet.

I live my life as though existence is real.

Seemingly, man is part of the 'stardust,' part of the universe and is 'let be' by/in what is common to all that is: being. There is a 'sameness' (an interconnectedness) with (beings) the universe (in Being there is only Being). And, there is a 'difference:' man is capable of (called to?) 'let be' thereby enabling (empowering) self/other selves/the universe to fulfillment/abundance: diversity in unity. Contradictory? No. Paradoxical? Definitely.

I must admit ... I find the substance of your post not clear to me.

Would anyone like to shed light on the confusion around the definition of theism? When Spong defines non-theism, I understand that he is defining a God that is not "a being" or "supernatural" something within the realm of time and space. How can one continue to use the word "God" and "non-theistic" in the same thought pattern? When the definition of the wore theo is 'of or pertaining to God'!!! It seems like Spong is totally contradicting his own argument by using the two terms interchangeably. Please shed some light or join my confusion. Thanks!

As to the original question ... for me

Theism takes on two broad aspects ... one is a general belief in a god or gods. The other is a belief in a God normally a personal revealed God. The non-theism that Spong refers to is the latter meaning. Deism (and many of the other godisms) refer to my first more general lower case god.

Troll away, my friend.

 

God is not recognized by any church or government as a legally authorized fiduciary agent. He cannot be a corporate officer nor can he authorize the legal transfer of assets. So he cannot accomplish steps 1 and 2.

God is also not recognized by as an accredited or legally authorized agent for many things ... medicine immediately comes to mind. So what? Why should I not take the health sector also up in to my hands ... just simply because god is not accredited appropriately?

If trolling be questioning advice you give, then so be it.

Burl's easy-peasy church reform program:

1) Eliminate the corporate church and give divide the assets between the congregations.

2) Eliminate appointments and have each congregation select their own leadership.

3) Leave everything else up to God.

Burl you gave us three steps ... without any reference to our concept of God. My question still stands why not leave everything up to God? Your statement like I said was without reference to any concept of God, I presumed you were referring to your concept of God, and you are on record as saying any concept we will have will be wrong. So for the moment your concept of God will do for your explanation.

I don't see the problem.

rom

Finally we agree on something! :-)

And your explanation?

Please explain your conception of God so I can answer.

It's identical to yours in that you have only been wrong once and it was not about God.

3) Leave everything else up to God.

Why not leave everything up to God, and we can get on with our lives and not worry about our orthodoxies and textual interpretations?