WindDancer

Marcus Borg says: "As Christians, we see in Jesus what God is like, what a life full of God is like." That is the description that best describes who Jesus is for me.

With the "Savior" thing, a person could explore the different atonement theories maybe. I don't think anybody mentioned that yet? That can be a pretty complicated subject to research. But at one time I didn't even know that there were different atonement theories out there. I just knew the one "substitutional," or Jesus as literal sacrifice.

ComradeInChrist mentioned Savior as powerful spiritual metaphor. I think that is true. I'm sure Joseph Campbell has explored that in his books. "Thou Art That" to name one specifically.

Also, I think "Cosmic Christ" might be another related/similar term a person could research.

I remember reading an Erhman book on this topic of Christians borrowing from other religions of the day. He had a description of what you would assume is Jesus, but at the end he said it was a description of Apollonius of Tyana. That really made me stop and think. Reference: "The New Testament A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 2nd Edition, By Bart D. Ehrman (c. 2000).

Which "real" Jesus do you have in mind, Lolly?

Johnson, Strobel, Brown, NT Wright, Witherington, Meier, Borg, Crossan, Spong, etc.

--------

I know this is kinda off topic, but since I brought it up here, I'll post it here.

I looked up the Joseph Campbell info.

Joseph Campbell was Roman Catholic. He formally abandoned the Church in his twenties. At the end of his life while in a hospital he had some kind of experience with a crucifix hanging on the wall. It's not real clear exactly what that all meant. The reference is: the Editor's Foreword in "Thou Art That" by Joseph Campbell, pg xvii hardcover.

The quote: "No, I don't have to have faith, I have experience." is from Chapter 8 Masks of Eternity in "The Power of Myth, by Joseph Campbell, pg 259 of small paperback version.

The context is pretty difficult to explain. It didn't have much to do with faith vs experience as we would normally understand that. His "experiences" were the different forces operating in his mind, which could be thought of as inspired by different divinities. See, I told ya, it was difficult to explain. LOL I have quite a few books of Campbell's, but I've never actually read them all the way through.

BeachOfEden and everyone,

Hey, I'm sort of a pluralist evangelical emergent/progressive liberal.

Boy, am I confused, huh.

I don't understand it really, just that I resonate with that idea of:

"being part of God's crisis-response team to bring healing to the world."

Oh yeah, my soul sings and dances to that tune.

I don't feel a need to convert anybody to anything, though.

I do want to share what I know, yes.

It's also about being--personal transformation and then giving that to the world.

We can be a healing force simply by who we are.

"Be the change we want to see in the world" type thing.

eric and all,

Oh man! I just got into Taoism and was surprised by how much I liked it.

Another one of those "coincidences" like Aletheia's "The Aletheian Institute" link she found. That was funny.

I want to chew on what was said so far in this thread and also over on the "new thought" thread, and then I'll post more of my thoughts.

I really like what Huston Smith said about Taoism in his "World's Religions" book.

I also bought:

"What is Tao?," by Alan Watts

"Tao Ching," by Stephen Mitchell (Recommended by Huston Smith)

"Everyday Tao," by Deng Ming-Dao (I love this book! It has brief one page commentaries on a word/topic along with the Chinese characters and explanation of it.)

Aletheia, Sounds like you are more familiar with the non-dualist topic than I am. I was just wondering how the mystics fit into this?

Don't they kinda talk that way too--non-dualist like? When a person delves into things like mysticism, pantheism, panentheism don't the boundaries dividing/separating God and us start to get real blurry?

Darby, Going from McDowell (fundamentalist) to Spong (extreme liberal) is a huge leap. I think it's more about people coming from different paradigms. A few Spong pieces won't fit the McDowell puzzle picture, if you know what I mean. It just won't make any sense.

Brian McLaren would be less of a leap than Spong. Marcus Borg is liberal, but not as extreme as Spong.

Cynthia, I wonder what Campbell meant by that? I didn't think Campbell was a Christian until right before he died? I'd have to research it.

BeachOfEden, I'm not enamored with the word "Evangelical." Some days I don't even want the Christian label either since that comes with so much baggage. But I've noticed that I connect with the Evangelical's sense of mission. The whole mission concept is being revamped by emergent evangelicals, so it is different than what many are used to.

Quote from Christianity Today article:

With his circle diagrams, McLaren is popularizing the work of the late British missionary Lesslie Newbigin, who returned from a lifetime in India to spend his last years reflecting on the need for a new theology of mission. "According to Newbigin, the greatest heresy in monotheism is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of election," McLaren says. "Election is not about who gets to go to heaven; election is about who God chooses to be part of his crisis-response team to bring healing to the world."

Here's another article

where McLaren talks about what being missional means.

You "guys" are getting a little too deep for this weary mind, but I'm going to add my two-cents anyways.

I've been reading Shakti Gawain's books.

I think she might be in the category of "new thought" and/or "new age."

I don't want to check my brain at the door and just believe.

But I don't want to go the other extreme of over-emphasizing the rational either.

"Transrational" would work for me.

That reminds me of the pre-critical, critical, post-critical stages of faith (Fowler).

Gawain does sound like she personalizes too much, and I disagree with that. Not everything is about me. I get the "I create my own reality" or "my own perception of reality" if you prefer. I didn't understand it to mean that the world is an illusion. (Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what Molly and PantaRhea are saying.)

To me, "I create my own reality" means we all have a "lense" thru which we see and experience the world. That "lense" can be changed or altered. I'm thinking of a scripture that talks about knowing only in part. Corinthians maybe. Don't even know if that applies here.

How would you (anybody) define "ego?"

Could PantaRhea or someone explain the "I, We, It, and Its" perspectives Wilber talks about, please.

I for one, am a bold and unapolgetic, EVANGELICAL LIBERAL CHRISTIAN (with post-liberal and process theology tendancies).

BrotherRog,

I'm wondering if you've read anything by Brian McLaren?

He's a "progressive" or "emergent" voice coming out of the Evangelical camp.

I am interested in a longer fast now - contemplating anyway. Foster suggests working up to it with juice fasts, etc. Any tips?

Cynthia,

"The Fasting Path," by Buhner looks like a good read.

I've had it on my to-read list for a while.

I might like to try fasting.

Aletheia,

I agree that getting some kind of timeline on the bible books is important and helpful.

Scholars do not agree, though, and this influences their interpretations of the text.

Marcus Borg has a good chapter on Paul in his book, "Reading The Bible Again."

He said Paul's letters are "conversations in context," only one-half of a conversation, more to do with specific issues arising within his communities, and writing to people who have already heard his message, so we should not see Paul's letters as a summary of his message. The agenda for Paul's letters is set not by him but by them.

Makes sense to me.

Marcus Borg does believe Jesus healed people.

As far as the gospels go, yeah, there's the historical Jesus and then the Jesus of faith or who Jesus became to his disciples after his death.

Hi Aletheia and everyone,

Newbie here. Aletheia, you remind me of myself before I got burned out and too beleaguered by the prolixity of scholarly verbosity.

After being bombarded by some disgustingly deep quoted material someone over at the Spong board said:

"Sometimes I read stuff like that and wonder:

Am I too stupid to cross the street by myself anymore?"

Cracked me up. I need some comic relief, once in a while.

(http://forums.prospero.com/sp-bishopspong)

Yeah, I did that once--tried to come up with a list of when the bible books were written according to modern day scholarship. Scholars disagree, but here's some info I had.

From Raymond Brown's "Intro to the NT" (Highly recommend this book. It can be searched at Amazon.com.)

Written in the 50's by Paul: 1 Thess, Gal, Phil, Phlm, 1&2 Cor, Rom

Mk - written 60's or after 70

Mt, Lk/Acts (two-vol. work) written 10-20 yrs after Mk

Written in Paul's name in 70-100 (or later) after Paul's death:

2 Thess, Col, Eph, 1&2 Tim, Titus

1Pet - If written by Peter, 60-63; more likely 70-90.

Heb - 60s or more likely 80s

Jms - If pseudonymous, after the death of James ca. 62, in the range 70-110; most likely in the 80s or 90s.

Jude - Impossible to tell. A few scholars place it in the 50's; many in 90-100.

2Pet - After 1 Pet and Jude; most likely AD 130, give or take a decade.

Rev - 92-96

Joh - 80-110

1&2 Joh - ca. 100 (after Joh)

3 Joh - after 100

The OT dates are even more difficult to nail down.

Suggested references:

Intro to NT, by Raymond Brown

Reading The Bible Again For The First Time, By Marcus Borg

The Harper Collins Study Bible NRSV

earlychristianwritings.com

ntgateway.com

otgateway.com

~WindDancer