Wonnerful

That would make a great chapter heading in a book Bill, "God in a man suit". I concur, Jesus was a human worth noting, even if Jesus is in the eye of the beholder, and each Jesus is different, from Mark to Luke to Mathew, as Borg, Crossan, and Spong point out, there is a trunk that led to the branches, meaning even the sayings and parables that were invented by the Evangelists, those were inspired by the memory of a good Jewish Rabbi who impacted those around him.

I am not so arrogant to think I am absolutely right. Maybe my feelings and thoughts on Reality is God. I am open. As for me being content with my view and being OK being supernaturally tone deaf, it took 40 years to become content after trying to have a supernatural experience and getting nothing but static/silence. I am not closed minded though, maybe 41 years is what it takes, ... Yes check out Amy-Jill, she is surprisingly quite funny for an academic scholar. I think you will enjoy her talk even if you don't agree with her take on a thoroughly Jewish Jesus.

BillM, Yea, I agree with everything you said. In fact, on the days I am feeling “spiritual” then panentheism is my theology of choice. I read Borg’s little book The God We Never Knew, and that is the only God concept that has room in my rational mind. Deborah, I like to say I am Wonder-Full, as in full of wonder, but wonnerful was the email name available J You wrote, “So in that sense I have no problem with Jesus having been one with the Father or him being divine...perhaps we all are on some level? If only because we have the breath of God in our lungs...that already means that our spirit, our breath came from the divine / is divine.” I think you’d enjoy the clip by Rob Bell titled Breathe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9unC6Hc6s8 and his talk, Everything is Spiritual: I like Rob Bell along with Brian McLaren in the Emergent camp. You said, “…perhaps Jesus is not different in kind, just different in degree. A kind of first fruits.” You are right that we are not scum. The humanist in me denies that entirely. What I think Paul is saying (based on the scholars I referenced in my last post) is what you said, Jesus was the first fruits, the angelic being that came to earth and took the role of a slave to be crucified and inaugurate the general resurrection (the first fruits). For Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, the end is nigh and God wants to graft us Gentiles into his family by way of adoption, and we adopted into Israel by getting a new spirit body (a Christ-type-body) as our Adamic-body decays and dies. So when we die we are sown corruptible, raised immortal. Yet Paul was a Jew who would say I think that we all have the breath of God in us, as we read God breathed into Adam’s nostrils the breath of life. We are nephesh, meaning basically God-breathed-creatures. We are not a soul in a body, but a God-breathed-soul body. In the OT the soul is the body and breath of God in us. Paul is not selling a new breath, but a new clothing, he is offering the taking off the Adam shell we inherited from Adam and putting on the Jesus clothes of immortality. This is why early Christians were baptized naked (I think that's correct) and put on white clothing, after they were buried in water and came out new beings symbolically. This also may explain the naked dude in Mark. Paul would then call the Christ Spirit to enter the initiate a that time of baptism. This is all in James Tabor’s book I referenced. As to your heart Deborah, and connection to the Christ of Faith. I have no problem with someone's personal feelings about Jesus. You have the right to believe and feel whatever you do. Just as I do. When my Evangelical Christians share their faith in Jesus with tears I do not mock or reject, and when Mormons say they saw angels in the LDS temple and they know the Book of Mormon is true because of a burning in their bosom, I do not mock or reject, and when others share similar experiences of other religions or New Age ideas I have the same reaction. I do not mock or reject their subjective experience, I merely answer that these experiences are foreign to me. Perhaps I am of the sort that is just not supernaturally inclined. In fact, brain studies show that atheists brains react different in scans than believer's brains. I think if I underwent one of these brain tests that they’d find my brain is just different then the average believer. I have always looked at spiritually from a head place, it had to make sense. When Mormonism stopped making sense all the emotional pull was of no use for my intellect couldn’t tolerate it. Regarding whether or not your spiritual experiences have a significance to them beyond the natural. I would add this to what BillM said, which I don't disagree with. I offer this merely for perspective, to get other's opinion. My honest answer, my opinion, is that I (me, one person who is not perfect nor a know all) thinks that those experience can be explained yes through neuroscience. I say this based on years of research on belief and the brain. I also think we are cultural mammals, and these neurological experiences we evolved to have are interpreted through the lends of our culture. Thus near death experiences for example, the details are determined by culture. One person sees Jesus, another the Buddha. I think these experience are REAL, I just think that yes they are products of the brain and not necessarily proof of anything external. That is my honest opinion. But hey, ask another person and they will have a different opinion. As to why you and BillM have had these experiences and I have not. I think the author of The God Part of the Brain puts it best, that all humans are on a spectrum. Some of us love rap music more than others, some of us enjoy risk more than others, etc. There are also abnormalities in the genomes. So yes, people like me are abnormal in the sense that these spiritual experiences appear to be the cross cultural norm. I have always been a deep thinker and a realist my whole life. Other family members were more idealists and dreams and from an early age I was more willing to just say that's Reality. And now I am the way I am as an adult. I think it is genetic. Regarding your question about the tension I feel. The tension is between my studies that show many problesm in Chrisnaity versus the fact that I was raised on the Christian Mythos/Story, the symbols and parables, etc. I find it hard to let go of it and just stick with the sciences as my new Story. I crave what I had, the simple beliefs and comfort and security and social connectedness. But after Mormonism I chose the road the less traveled, the road of test all things as BillM says. I told myself, no matter how uncomfortable, how scary, I will face the unknown head on, I will read anything and everything no matter how scared I am to know that fact or idea. Whereas most Mormons are taught to avoid that, for me it was inevitable. And I have not stopped questioning and exploring. I am fearless when it comes to testing my ideas and throwing them out if they don’t make sense. You also mentioned the historical Jesus. I just listened to this yesterday and completely agree with all she says. See Amy-Jill Levine - Who Did They Say He Was? Jesus in Text and Context - 03/31/15. Online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbE87SHRQ3A&list=PLftmpasLfCemGzKSVG2B-2RsbAwKOp53i&index=23 Thus, the historical Jesus, like the historical Buddha and Aristotle certainly should not be rejected. I side with John D. Crossan on Jesus, there is Mathew's Jesus and Luke's Jesus, etc. We all have our own Jesuses. Even atheist Richard Dawkins admires Jesus. You wrote: “Perhaps the natural is divine? Along the lines of 'everything is spiritual'? We live and move and have our being in the divine? In which case you can stop and marvel and wonder at the smallest most natural things...a butterfly, a couple holding hands, an older brother protecting his younger sister, a dead flower that still manages to catch the eye with a certain kind of beauty...life. As you labelled it Bill: panentheism.” If you just replace the word divine with the word Reality then we are on the same page. You see for me Reality is more amazing than anything described in the world’s scriptures. I mean just try and fathom how there is no closed system, that our universe is the origination of time and space. Well what is outside our universe? If our universe is like an expanding balloon blowing up, what is outside the balloon?That is a non-question in physics. For our universe is the origination of time and space! It blows my mind. This THIS/REALITY is bigger than our mammalian perceptions. Call it divine or call it Reality, there is something bigger than us. That is what I assent to. I know my mammalian imagination seeks to fill the gaps with answers, but I think we were not meant to fully understand REALITY. Our brains evolved to hunt and kill and gather and socialize, etc. Not understand what originated the multiverse if there is one. In the end my studies of personality types show that we are all just different. I think this explains the difference in religion and politics, etc. I embrace diversity. I don't want all to agree with me necessarily, for that would be demanding they have my brain, a male brain, a left-brained personality type with all my experiences and my exact genome. I see religion and spirituality as an artistic canvas to paint our heart's delight, I think most people evolved a God part of the brain thus one should not deny it but embrace it yet temper it with reason and science.

Sorry for your loss BillM, I too lost a loved one in the past. I was a full card-carrying atheist at the time and was closed minded about the "More" we've been discussing. My supernatural-theist friends wondered if my atheism made my loved one's death harder to handle. The answer is it made the mourning process easier for me personally. I did not wonder why a deity did not intervene or get upset that one didn't. I did not expect divine intervention so I had no such thoughts. I did not worry about whether or not my loved one got into heaven or not. I could just mourn their death naturally. Nowadays, I add onto my non-theism that "More" as a possibility. I WANT to experience my loved ones again after this life and I envision I will as a personal dream. I also hope it is realistically possible, for maybe our consciousness survives the death of the brain in some way and survives into another dimension (perhaps something like the movie Interstellar). I hope. And if death is the end, that is OK too for it will not be sad for me, as there will be no more me, and no them, we will all peacefully sleep into oblivion. In other words, there won't be anyone left to feel sad at the other's passing, for time will greet us all with the kiss of eternal sleep. But I still hope for that "More" and that is my right. It sounds like we both agree on the gist of this topic. It sounds like we are on the same page BillM, it is nice to find an educated soul that shares your desire to believe and yet retain a healthy skepticism. You wrote: "Well, Wonnerful, that is the kicker of the process theology “God”. If I understand it correctly, the fact they we exist is proof that God exists, for our being comes from God’s Being (not “a being”, but existence itself)." I have not studied the Tillich God directly but indirectly from what Spong and Borg say about it, as well as others summarizing Tillich's view. And your quote above resonates with me. I have been telling friends the last year that "I just assent to Reality. Reality brought me into life and Reality will eventually take me out (as it does all living beings). Reality will do with me what it does." If you replace Reality with the term God, then that is my position. If you define God as Reality or Existence, or the ground of Being, then there is certainly a God, or just God/REALITY. Even if we were brains in a vat, like the movie the Matrix, there'd still be a ground of Being. For me that Mystery is God. I think you'd agree Peace

To be clear, I am not so self-centered to think that my experience is the end all be all. I do not doubt other's experiences. I can only speak for my own experience. I would love to have a supernatural experience that my rational mind could wrestle with, but I don't even have that. I am not interested in taking away anyone 's supernatural beliefs or experience. Having said that, just to share my perspective, I will respond to your numbered arguments below: 1. This doesn't convince me personally, for if we do have a God part of the brain and all our human brains are similar then of course all the experience would be similar, just as we all yawn when another yawns etc. Our brains do all kinds of things universally/globally that we know are illusions. 2. I completely argree with awe and wonder. When I stare up at the stars and fathom its un-fathomable-ness, I feel awe and wonder. I like what Car Sagan says on awe and wonder and spirituality. See https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/06/12/carl-sagan-on-science-and-spirituality/ I guess I resonate more with this form of spirituality than the religious mystics, yet perhaps both are part of the same God part of the brain. Basically, this concept of God you speak of BillM, I have no issue with. What I get annoyed with is when kids die of cancer daily and some church attributes one kid's recovery to the prayers of the congregation, as if the deity needed more praise before he'd act. But I digress, because Spong, Borg, and Crossan are all NON-THEISTS! Maybe a Tillichian ground of Being does exist, and something MORE does exist, I hope so. I just have no experience of it. Could there be more to Reality than physics? Yes. I have just had zero indication of it. All I see is what Spinoza defined, a determined Universe of cause and effect. I can only relate to Einstain's God which is essentially the Cosmos itslef. In a way this God is comforting, the God of math, if I do this enough number of times I will get a result, etc. The Cosmos is mathematically reliable, at least on earth. Of course, in the face of death or in mourning, do I long for immortality, for a heavenly Father, a deity to embrace me and welcome into a mansion in the clouds. You bet I do. I WANT to believe, Lord help my unbelief (as we read in Mark 9:24).

Deborah, Keep in mind that BillM and I are the more analytical type of person (or maybe I should just speak for myself but I think BillM would agree). I also was bamboozled by Mormonism so I am skeptical of appeals to emotion and heart, because that is the bread and butter of Mormonism. For me, if there is a God he gave us a brain for a reason. Then again, sometimes all head and no heart is not good either. We have emotions for a reason too. Having said that, here are my intellectual thoughts on what you wrote. The passages of God and I are one by Jesus (you mentioned in one of your first posts in this thread) comes mostly from the Gospel of John. You find less of that in Mark, the first Gospel written, based on history, as BillM pointed out. Jesus did not become what BillM calls "God in a man suit" till much later in history. In other words, I don’t think the first followers of Jesus (as the Messiah) saw him as The Deity, but as BillM puts it, a "Spirit filled" prophet/messiah. Jesus died around 30, then comes Paul who was at odds with the Jewish Leadership under James (see Paul and Jesus by James Tabor for more details). If you look at what historical scholars have gathered, Paul wrote his letters (that are about 1/3 of the NT) in and around the 50s, before the Gospels were formed (Mark is first written around 70). Paul, like John, does somewhat equate Jesus with God, but not exactly the same way. Scholars point out that for Paul (a monotheist) he appears to form a separation between God and Christ while having God the Father work through the Christ Spirit. Paul’s Spiritual Christ sort of acts on behalf of God as the Messiah as Spirit. His Christ is sort of like the Shekinah of God, his Christ is a Spirit Angel (or angelic-like) that can possess you and dwells in your body, this spirit possession forms in you a new spirit body as your outer flesh body decays while living. When you then die Paul argues that your flesh body is sown in the earth like an acorn, and from there the new spirit body is resurrected as you change clothes so to speak, you put off the flesh and put on the heavenly body since flesh and blood can't inherit the Kingdom Paul envisions. And just as God used to dwell in the temple (in the OT the temple is God's body basically), now God dwells in you through Christ in you, in that the Christ-Spirit dwells in you (thus Paul says paraphrasing, be moral cuz don’t ya know you’re the temples of God). In short, you are spiritually adopted into the immortal family of angels and resurrected humans under God (and are grafted into Israel as a Gentile) when you are possessed by Christ. For details see: 1 Corinthians 11:3–16: Spirit Possession and Authority in a Non-Pauline Interpolation by Christopher Mount (I found this article online for free). For Jesus as an angel see: How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman (I read it at the bookstore). For details on the new spirit body see Paul and Jesus by James Tabor. Point of all of that is that the Jesus of History did not say anything about any of that Paul created. The Jesus of history did not ask to be worshiped, he taught worship of the Father only. For Jesus, there was one God, Yahweh; and as BillM points out he may have felt "Spirit filled" but he most probably did not think he was God. Paul and John are mostly responsible for deifying Jesus, and as Bart Ehrman points out there was an evolution in this process. I recommend you read Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism by John Spong. It is one of the first books I read and Spong as a Christian showed me early on that that the Bible is different than how I thought.

BillM, Thanks for your thoughts. I agreed with everything you said. Only whereas you seem to have had a real feeling experience of God, I have not. I have no experience whatsoever that confirms for me personally a deity exists. This has led to an observation. In reading Spong and Borg for example, two prominent progressive Christians, they talk of a palpable experience of God, like mystics speak of. You too mention this. These feelings are absent from my experience. I have experienced nothing supernatural or mystical or otherwise, at least nothing I can’t attribute to emotions or neuropsychology. Borg said he has a mystical experience in the woods. Spong feels the presence of the Divine that transcends traditional-theism. I feel nothing. For me God is a mere metaphor for Reality, and whatever originated the Big Bang or the Multiverse. It is an unknown phenomenon that doesn’t have to be a deity. I see all deities as anthropomorphic projections of the human body writ large into the sky. I’m sure of course that your concept of God is more sophisticated than that, than of tradition theism BillM. Point is I tend to think as a philosophical naturalist, but I want to believe there is “more.” This more as Borg puts it, for me may just be my imagination and The God Part of the Brain (an actual book title). But that’s OK, after reading The Seven Laws of Magical Thinking, I think it is OK to allow for some magic and if my species evolved a God part of the brain that it evolved for a reason for practical use, so why not invoke it if nature formed it in me, right. Regarding your comment that “God hasn’t changed,” if there is a God, then I agree. Humans have changed their perception of God as I mention in my posts. Thanks for the links to CC I look forward to reading them thoroughly, I have skimmed them and they remind me of Spong’s book Why Christianity Must Change or Die and his other books. I like that the author says thus far. What I like about Progressive Chrsitniaty (PC), as you put it BillM, is that there is less boxes and more creative exploration. That, I can be on board with. I like Elaine Pagel’s work in this regard, for it helps PC a lot in that her work shows that there is no one creed, one interpretation, one canon, etc. There is also A New New Testament that just came out which challenges creedal dogmatism or CC. So I get it BillM. I support it. My intellect just wonders if it’s worth it sometimes. I am at odds with head and heart I guess. At a cross roads, I have a split decision in my head sometimes. In other words, I find myself on the side of the atheists who reject all forms of religion on one hand and the religious humanist/PC/spiritual but not religious, etc. on the other. Perhaps this tension does not need to be resolved.

I agree BillM that Jesus is focused on behavior, something CC (do you mean Common Christianity?) overlooks. They project Pauline thoughts onto Jesus, then mix in Martin Luther to create a Jesus at odds with the Jewish Jesus for Judaism.

Thanks for your thoughts Soma, a little off topic but I think I get the gist of what you're saying. BillM, the more I think about this “intellectually” the less satisfied I am. If I seek scholarly consensus and definitive conclusions I end up frustrated, atheistic, and reject all religion and spirituality for instead the security of cold hard reliable logic and evidence. But if I take a “pragmatic” perspective and cherry pick from the Bible like everyone else does, and have what Borg calls a metaphorical Lens, then I find a way to be Christian. I can find a place in Christianity if I see the Bible as a library of discordant views, several authors in argument and disagreement with each other as Thom Stark argues (author of The Human Faces of God). Thus I can join the "argument." Crossan points out in How to Read the Bible and Still be Christian that even the Jesus character, throughout the four Gospels combined, often disagrees with himself and contradicts himself. Crossan points out that each Gospel Jesus often disagrees with the other since each Jesus is a creation of the authors Mark, Mathew, Luke and John with their own theological biases and personality. So if I take a hard line scholarly view or just think in terms of is it historical fact or fiction then yea the whole Bible is problematic. But if I see it through the Lens of Mythos as Joseph Campbell put it, and as an ongoing argument in the Bible itself, and treat the Bible as library not a single authored book, then I can see benefit in joining the argument of these biblical authors. I mean Aristotle embraced slavery but that doesn’t mean I can’t value his Golden Mean between extremes as a good ethical principle. Likewise, even if the biblical writers were wrong about some things doesn’t mean I can find the good they did say. I guess I don’t have to just be an anti-Literalist, I can be a pro-Metaphorical-ist like Borg and J. Campbell. Where I still find a place to value the Christian Mythos, is the way the Bible seems to follow a trajectory, from the god of war to a God of Love (as Spong and Borg emphasize), from God rewards piety in Proverbs to God sends the rain on the good and bad, from martyr-centered apocalyptic Gospels to more mystic-centered (the Kingdom is Now) Gospels like John, etc. So with that it doesn’t matter if Jesus was a Jew for Judaism while I am not interested in converting to Judaism in order to do the WWJD (see my first post). Jesus, as a composite character, is composite God-man, each Gospel author’s projection mixed with possible historical oral tradition from the real Jesus, forming an ideal, the nice healer and strong arguer, a mixed personality just as all Gospel authors had different personalities. And so what if Jesus doesn’t cover retirement planning or how to defend yourself in an alley. Neither does the Buddha or Confucius to my knowledge. I can see Jesus for what he was (a 1st century Jew) and not demand he be what the Fundamentalists claim he is with their book titles like Jesus Solves All Your Problems: Money, Relationships, Fitness. I can see Paul as a product of his day and not demand more of him just as I accept the Buddha’s flaws but value his insights (like mindfulness meditation), etc.

Picking up from a prior thread, I have been thinking of the Jesus of History versus the Christ of Faith. Like BillM, I too like the Kingdom ideal (that is if there was apocalyptic Jesus who was mistaken about its immanent arrival as a Yahweh Ruled Kingdom) or if the Jesus Seminar is right about the historical Jesus who saw the Kingdom as a here and now social movement lived in the Now. I like to say Kindome as in treating all fellow humans as if they were kin, which is true based on evolution. Then again, one doesn't need the NT to advocate for peace on earth. In the book Darwin's Sacred Cause, the author's argue that Darwin was motivated to end racism with evolution. My own reading leads me to see the Christ of Faith as Paul's invention. I think Mark based his gospel on Pauline teachings. I think Jesus was a Torah true Jew and James (whether or not he was Jesus' literal brother or not) upheld Jesus' teaching after he died, which was a Jewish Messianic Sect run by James the Just. Many scholars have discussed this and I can give references to anyone who is curious. OK, so first we have Paul which is another story as there are two Pauls, the authentic letters of Paul and the pseudo-letters of Paul. But that's for another discussion. I have already voiced my concerns elsewhere that the authentic Paul was wrong about the end of the world (age) and was anti-life, pro-celibacy, and focused on the evacuation plan (get possessed by the Messiah to gain new spirit bodies for the next realm coming soon to an earth near you). That is not very relevant to me in 2015, you can focus on his egalitarian politics as Borg and Crossan do, but they ignore Paul's, in my view, delusional supernaturalism. Back to Jesus. I still hold those warm feelings about the "Family Friendly / Sunday School Jesus" who had brown hair, flowing beard, and was basically a hippie preaching love and peace. That Jesus is my buddy, I would speak to as a kid and teen. In my 20s I found myself projecting my modern 21st century morals onto this Jesus, as he was the mirror image of my own ethics and ideals. But scholars present Jesus differently. Quick Facts (as I see it) About Jesus: Jesus did not look like a white European with blond hair and blue eyes. According to the Discovery Channel that used science to reconstruct a Jew living at the time of Jesus, he looked more like this image by the BBC, See the last slide here: http://news.discovery.com/history/art-history/what-did-jesus-look-like-131216.htm WWJD? (What Would Jesus Do?). Well Jesus was a Jew for Judaism. In the book The Jewish Gospels, author Daniel Boyarin, argues convincingly (to me) that Jesus kept Kosher and advocated every jot tittle of the 600+ rules of Torah. So to be a disciple of Jesus means literally not eating bacon and basically living as a Torah true Jew. See: The Year of Living Like Jesus: My Journey of Discovering What Jesus Would Really Do by Edward G. Dobson. Scholarly consensus, as summarized in the book Zealot is that Jesus was an apocalyptist. Even if one rejects the consensus and goes with the Jesus Seminar, the Seminar admits that the Bible itself presents Jesus as an apocalyptist. The Seminar argues that both John the Baptist and Paul were wrong as apocalyptists, but Jesus rejected apocalypticism. In order to do that they designate about 80% (I forget exact percentage) of the NT to be pure fiction and not going back to Jesus. So one can focus on the Christ of Faith and the fruit of the spirit, etc. But as a modern man living in 2015 I have no idea what it means to follow Jesus after studying the historical Jesus. I am not interested in converting to Judaism and obeying all 600+ commandments. I love bacon for example and see no reason to stop eating it. So realistically, why say I am a follower of Jesus? If one points out the Golden Rule and other teachings, that is not persuasive. For Confucius and Buddha taught the Golden Rule before Jesus. And the Jewish Rabbi Hillel taught nearly all the same things as Jesus. So why follow Jesus over Hillel? When I look back on my own life I have been influenced more in various ways, by masculine role models in movies or TV, to Aristotle, Buddha, Tony Robbins, Joyce Gracie of Brazilian Jiujutsu, Albert Ellis (father of REBT that influenced CBT) Einstein, Darwin, Edison, Steve Jobs (his technology), Dale Carnegie, Steven Covey, and John Gottman, etc. Quite frankly, Jesus advice is mostly for Jews living in the first century. He doesn’t teach anything about how to mange money, retirement planning, dating, romantic relationships, health and fitness, etc. What use is it to hold the minority Jesus Seminar view when most Christians sees the literal Bible Jesus as the real Jesus? I mean if I use the Jesus language of the Jesus Seminar I am at odds with most Christians who believe every word and deed of Jesus in the Bible is literally accurate. We end up speaking past each other just like a Mormon and an Evangelical talk past each other. And my atheist friends wonder why bother. Why even speak that language rather than the unifying language of science, which produces as Carl Sagan says "transgeneration metamind" or what E.O. Wilson calls "consilience." In short, progressive Christianity is my last try at being a Christian. I am holding on for sentimental reasons while my intellect wonders why bother? I am open to any thoughts or discussion or debate on this topic?

I'll put it in the debate section

I'll open another thread and titled it The Jesus of History & The Christ of Faith?

BillM, I agree with everything you say. We can cherry pick this or that saying of Jesus and modernize it but the fact is he was a Jew preaching to Jews. I also question his literal existence, as I said in the posts above, I think he is a composite character. Maybe there was an original Jew name Yeshua whose sayings were past down through oral tradition. But by the time the Gospel writers started forming their Christ of Faith, these Gospel authors, using midrash developed their own Jesuses. And then later scribes and copiers added their take, like he who is without sin cast the stone is well known as a later scribal addition. You mentioned the Sunday School Jesus, what you call Sunday School Jesus is what I call the Christ of Faith (or evangelical Christianity). I define the Sunday School Jesus as what I was taught in Mormon Sunday School, where the focus was Jesus being a hippie nice guy with long hair in a robe teaching love and kindness. But we are on the same page I think. we just use different meanings for our terms. Your family friendly Jesus is what I call the Sunday School Jesus, and this has to do with our childhoods, as the Mormons are more family friendly than some churches. This again is evidence that we are not talking about science but mythos which is like a poem is open to interpretation. I like to say, one math, one math book; and all mathematicians agree on it and unite around it globally. One NT, a thousand Christianities and endless factions, global conflict, and holy wars. I sympathize with JosephM's wish for a gnostic-like form of Christianity, where we have the divine spark within and Christ is merely the Buddha-like example that allows us to recover our own divinity. JosephM, you'd like A New Earth by Tolle, as he presents Jesus as an enlightened Buddha. But like BillM, I think this view is not popular except in new age circles and among some progressive Christians. The scholarly consensus is again that Jesus was a Jew with Jewish beliefs in the 1st century, which was apocalytic. For me progressive Christianity is: Joseph Campbell + Liberal/Progressive Politics. As a liberal myself I think that is fine. And I also think the Bible as a whole contains more liberal politics than conservative. The "greed is good" theme just does not fit the NT. As I wrote above, the theme is "Enoughism." This I can support.

Lastly, I have not read John Crossan's new book yet, but he seems to be wrestling with something similar to what I was talking about. His new book is: How to Read the Bible and Still Be a Christian: Struggling with Divine Violence from Genesis Through RevelationMar 3, 2015 by John Dominic Crossan

So here is a further apologetic: The theme of Progressive Christianity is that scripture is not static, it actually changes and is modified. Jesus slightly modifies the current teachings in Judaism in his day by rejected the Tradition of the Elders, Paul modifies Judaism even further welcoming Gentiles; the god of War becomes a God of Love in the NT, martyr tracts become, as in John, about the Kingdom here and now. There is a trajectory in place, from stoning for adultery to he is who is without sin cast the first stone, from Proverbs saying God rewards good people and punishes the bad to Ecclesiastes and Job challenging this (as Borg argues in Reading the Bible Again for the First Time). There is this internal debate within the scriptures themselves, that follows a trajectory toward greater enlightenment and practical wisdom.

Fatherman: Yea I really am just seeking discussion and testing my opinions that I may modify them, I am quite ego-less in this regard. I go where the logic and evidence takes me, and occasionally my heart leads the way as well. BillM: I find myself agreeing with everything you said. Funny but at the beach the other day I was thinking that there are really five kinds of Jesus that I see. 1. Sunday school Jesus. 2. PC Jesus (Borg, Crossan, etc.). 3. Fundamentalist Jesus (Graham, Shaffer, Falwell, etc.), 4. Historical Jesus of scholarly consensus (Ehrman, King, etc.). Then 5, the Mythicists. The average person though knows only the Sunday School Jesus. A Jesus everyone likes it seems and can champion, including me. I don’t think most people care about the real Jesus, or the most probably Jesus of historical analysis. And when we do turn to history we at best just reach a consensus (e.g. Jesus was an exorcist, healer, apocalyptist, etc), again if you accept the consensus or believe it holds some authority which I myself am not sure about. JosephM: I understand where you are coming from. I am more like Spong who said the heart cannot accept what the mind rejects. But I do respect your position. I also mentioned where Paul says prove all things in my posts. As for the Buddha quote, I am a big fan of Siddhartha Gautama, mindfulness works for me. But the Buddha I think was also wrong about some things. If I can trust the quote in your post, and if he is disparaging rationality and scientific methodology then I disagree. By the way this is also why I rejected Nietzsche in my 30s, for he was too anti-science for my taste. He gave too much credence and emphasis to the primal side of us in my opinion. Some scholars still say he indirectly contributed to the Nazis as well, who were far from rational in their weird national religion that mixed and matched. I was bamboozled by Mormonism because I ignored my intellect and let my feelings rule. Never again. But I do use my heart, I just temper it with reason and science. PaulS: I agree with what you said. When I used to have verbal debates about the Bible, I’d eventually say, “Well, too bad we can’t get Paul or Jesus on the phone right now and ask them what they really meant? Paul, people say you didn’t write 1 Timothy, is that right? Paul, what did you mean when you wrote 1 Cor. 13: 2? Jesus, was the Kingdom the present Now as the Jesus Seminar says, or future vision of Yahweh ruling the earth as Bart Ehrman said you meant?” To all: What I am hearing from everyone is a basic theme, there is no one set creed, no one set interpretation, just shared principles. Principles lined out in the 8 principles I presume, and as PC one can interpret the Bible how they like as there is no dogma police like in Fundamentalism. Lastly, regarding my posts themselves. I did come up with another apologetic. It occurred to me that just as the concept of God in the Bible seems to evolve from a war god to a God of Love (per Spong, Crossan, & Borg), so too perhaps the Gospels may have evolved from initially martyr tracts as with Mark and Luke (that is if these scholars I mention are correct) to a non-martyr tract with the Gospel of John (which I don’t think is considered a matyr tract by anyone). If my memory is correct, scholars argue that in John the Kingdom is more like in the Now. Then as time pasted, Christians stopped interpreting Mark and Luke as martyr tracts, especially when Rome adopted Christianity as the state religion.

Upon reflection, hopefully my post will not be taken as overly argumentative. I am at heart a philosopher, and benefit form the dialectic. I like to test my views and other's views (like the Bereans, test all things hold to the good) to reach the most probable as Socrates did. I truly am frustrated that my previous view is now being tested by what I perceive as scholarship challenging my previous views. Thus the posts, which are an attempt to seek further insight and perspective. I did offer one attempt at an apologetic in my second post above. My own apologetic does offer some solution, but not fully satisfying. After reading through the post I saw here: http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/2457-just-what-is-progressive-christianity-to-you/... Perhaps I am a bit too intellectual? Perhaps it really is more of a heart thing. I did not know where else to post my questions/perceptions, if not here. Hopefully, my thoughts have not troubled anyone. I guess this is an attempt to soften how I might sound above. Now I will be leaving for a day or two to the beach here in California. If I do not respond right away that is why. Thanks for your responses thus far

Fatherman, you wrote: The people in his times were perpetually confused about his words. Which were literal? Which were spiritual/metaphorical? We may never know for sure. I agree, but then what relevance are the texts if they can be interpreted any way we like and there is no most probable interpretation? My epistemology is science and historical scholarship. I politely wonder, if you have a different method that is better at deciphering the truth/most probable please share. But as a former Mormon the pray and seek inspiration would just lead back to believing in the Book of Mormon. You wrote: But I think there is more to taking up your cross than physical martyrdom. In fact, that may be the least of it. I don't need to rehash Joseph's ideas on that. I used to think that too. Then I read the scholarship on Mark and martyrdom and could not honestly ignore the scholarship on this. I then held out hope that Luke seems to modify Mark, as Luke seemed to be saying take up your cross "daily," as if Luke was expanding 'take up your cross' to more than just martyrdom to mean die to selfishness/egotism, etc But then I read some scholarly papers on Luke and was like, darn, that doesn't work either. Luke too, is pro-martyrdom. The scholarship is there when I was open to it. You quoted me saying "when I read these texts word for word from a scholarly perspective, they have less and less relevance to me". you then wrote "I think you hit the nail on the head there. You're reading from a scholarly perspective something that isn't scholarly at all. It has very little relevance from that perspective." Again, by scholarly I mean what is the best method to interpret the text. Blind faith and feelings or science-based archaeology, linguistics, historical analysis, etc. Is that not the methods used by Spong and Crossan, etc? We may have different epistemologies it sounds like. After leaving Mormonism I learned that the best method is science and scholarship (meaning, linguistics, historical context, archaeology, etc.). Again, if there is a better method, then I will stop reading scholarship on the NT. If you can convince me there is a better method I am open to it, but I doubt there is. For example, Spong has emphasized reading the NT through Jewish eyes? I'm sure you'd agree that this scholarly way of reading with Jewish eyes is more accurate than reading the texts with only Gentile eyes? For example, if I just read a text by Jesus and came up with some non-scholarly poetic meaning that fit my fancy, and then later learned that the text meant something in its original Jewish context, would I be being honest with myself if I ignored that Jesus was a Jew, and instead just maintained my subjective interpretation with modern eyes, ignoring the historical context? In fact, I thought that the whole point of Progressive Christianity, is that Borg, Spong, Crossan, and McLaren are using the scholarship to create an alternative to Fundamentalism: by emphasizing among other things the message of "Enoughism" (as Crossan puts it) and other liberal political ideals in the Bible. Which I support by the way. You then wrote, "I have a rather blunt, but prayerful question for you. What are you hoping to get out of the Bible?" Well, I have a John Spong opinion about prayer as a non-theist like Spong. Out of the Bible? I thought it could be used as an anchor for a path of living in the modern world with Spong and Borg offering their reinterpretations and having an anti-fundamentalist, and more metaphorical lens. I was hoping to use it as a common language with fellow liberal Christians. Seeing it as a philosophy of non-violence (as Walter Wink argues) and an ethical stance toward yes "the fruit of the spirit" (as JosephM mentioned earlier) and the unifying philosophy of 1 Cor. 13, etc. Note: after writing this, I recalled that 1 Cor. 13 implies martyrdom was an accepted practice, otherwise why would Paul bring it up? Paul seems to be saying that even if you die a martyr, if you did it lacking love in your heart, then that was for nothing. But in context he seems to imply martyrdom is a noble path if done with love. 1 Corinthians 13: 3 (DLNT) reads "And if I dole-out[a] all my possessions, and if I hand-over[b] my body so that I may boast[c], but I do not have love, I am profited nothing." Footnotes read: 1 Corinthians 13:3 Or, give away (piece by piece). 1 Corinthians 13:3 Or deliver. That is, deliver into slavery to help others; or as a martyr. 1 Corinthians 13:3 Some manuscripts say ‘be burned’. Here is the verse from the EXB: "3 I may give away everything I have, and I may even give my body ·as an offering to be burned [L to be burned].[a] But I gain nothing if I do not have love." Footnotes read: 1 Corinthians 13:3 give… burned Other Greek copies read “hand over my body in order that I may brag.” Which brings me back around to my last post, which is still hanging in the air, my conundrum as presented in that post. I can cherry pick the nice bits, but I wonder if I am ignoring the over arching theme of apocalyticisim, interim ethic, and martyology. I am a deeply honest person with myself. I am not afraid to question my prior views if the truth(s)/most probable conclusions, given the evidence, tests my former views. It is not fun to spend a few years reading nearly everything on the progressive Christian view, then continuing your studies and find this other scholarly view you find more honest to the texts themselves. To be blunt myself, I have started to think that Borg and Crossan allowed their liberal political views (I'm a liberal myself) and cultural attachment to the Christian subculture, to skew their views and their emphasis, while ignoring the martyology and apocalypticism. That is just my opinion. I sympathize with them as a liberal myself, but have questioned recently whether or not their political bias has led to an interpretation that is more invention than historically accurate? Again, back to my central issue, why revere these texts if martyology is the central theme? Why not cut and paste from Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus (as Jefferson did), and others, and form your own philosophy? Why narrow the focus to Paul if he was flat wrong on how to live and on dying? On a side note: I mean imagine if Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers took on the NT ideal of welcoming martyrdom, then the US would not exist! The Founding Fathers would have turned themselves over to be hanged as willing maryters. Just turn over a Dollar Bill to the back side and see that the eagle has in it's talons the message of peace or war. Paul was not for war and democracy, but dying to bring on the coming of the Messiah and the resulting Jewish Theocracy was he not? I think even Borg and Crossan would agree. If we are honest, was that not Paul's message? The end is nigh, the Jewish Deity is coming to Rule? As for Jesus, the majority of NT scholars think he was an apocalyptist like Paul. But even if he was not an apocalyptist and was instead a Jewish Cynic Sage and taught non-violent resistance as Walter Wink says, again, what relevance does that hold for today when Hillel said some of the same things Jesus did, and the symbol of America includes the talon of war? Quite frankly, I think Jesus was a composite character, on one end the texts says he is against taking up the sword, in another text he says to buy a sword. In some texts he is for peace and the Kingdom is merely an ideal here and now, in others he looks forward to the end of the age like Paul and the coming Jewish Theocracy. Then again, why can't both views go back to the historical Jesus, maybe he was forming a unified loving ideal now, yet also looked forward to the end of the age and a Jewish Theocracy? That is the consensus among NT scholars by the way. Not that consensus' are always right, but it does give us pause don't you think? The Jesus Seminar I think puts less than 20% of his sayings and deeds of Jesus in the NT as going back to him. I don't recall if take up your cross was a saying considered red or black in the Seminar voting. But it's beside the point, what is the over arching message of Mark as a text? My own reading of the NT, and these scholars referenced above, has convinced me the central theme throughout the NT (especially in Mark and Revelation) is anti-life and pro-martyrdom. If I am to be honest with myself, and use the best truth finding methods, and go where the evidence leads me, what then is the relevance of these texts, in their original martyr-centered context, for a modern reader today? Again, I offered my own attempt at an apologetic and am willing to be swayed or hear other opinions.

To Joseph M: You wrote: “Why try to apply those "dying a martyr" writings to our times if they are no longer applicable? I agree. But then my understanding is that Paul’s entire corpus is based on this overarching theme of anti-Rome and dying a noble death and the writer of Mark picks up where Paul left off. You wrote: I think the message of dying from Jesus and Paul was more about dying to self interests (ego) and living to manifest the fruits of the spirit which benefit all mankind. I used to think that too. But since then I have been an diligent researcher and have been reading works such as: > Gospel of Mark by Anderson > When Did Christians Stop Seeking Martyrdom? Christianity's founder was a martyr, not Islam's. By Brian Palmer http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com/2008/07/christianity-cult-of-death.html > The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul's Concept of Salvation by David Seeley > A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom Among Christians and Jews in Antiquity Hardcover – November, 1992 by Arthur Droge (Author), James Tabor (Author) > Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic Conflict in Early Christianity By Paul Middleton (Paul Middleton has a whole faculty website with articles on martyrdom in early Chrisinity: http://www.chester.ac.uk/departments/trs/staff/middleton ) > A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins By Burton L. Mac > Blood Sacrifice: The Connection Between RomanDeath Rituals and Christian Martyrdom by Angela Dawne Kennedy. http://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1267&context=honors_theses > Early Christianity's Martyrdom Debate By David Van Biema Wednesday, Mar. 07, 2007. http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1596991,00.html > JESUS' DEATH IN Q by David Seeleyhttp://www.markgoodacre.org/synoptic-l/JDEATH.HTM > ‘Noble Death or Death Cult?: Pagan Criticism of Early Christian Martyrdom’ by Paul Middleton. Abstract: The ‘Noble Death’ in Graeco-Roman thought was as good a way to die as any. It encompassed the heroic death in battle against the odds in defence of the homeland, the practice of devotio–voluntary death in the context of a pact with the gods for the good of others–and even self-killing, at least in the correct circumstances. Graeco-Roman philosophers could reflect on a ‘canon’ of Noble Deaths, which included Socrates, Cato the Younger, and Lucretia. Noble Death themes are found in Jewish writing, especially in the Maccabean literature and Josephus’ accounts of the Jewish War. Christian writers also deployed Noble Death tropes in martyr narratives and especially in apologia. Tertullian and John Chrysostom, for example, favourably compare Christian martyrs to pagan examples of Noble Death. However, while at first sight Christian martyrdom appears to share aspects of Noble Death tradition, pagan critics do not appear recognise this honourable tradition in Christianity. This paper analyses pagan critiques of Christian attitudes to death, and in particular, criticism of martyr practices. It will explore why pagan philosophers not only failed to register Christian martyrdom as constituting the Noble Death, but also why they effectively dismissed it as a form of self-killing which did not match the idealised accounts of suicide among the ‘canon’ of Noble Death. So, while Tertullian believed martyrdom had a positive impact on pagan observers, for at least some, martyrdom was evidence that Christianity was little more than an inexplicable death cult.More Info: International Society of Biblical Literature, Amsterdam, Netherlands (22-26 July 2012) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs#Martyrdom_as_a_component_of_Christian_self-understanding http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/martyrs.html > Salvation Through Participation: An Examination of the Notion of the Believers' Corporate Unity with Christ in Early Christian Soteriology by Daniel G. Powers. In the Google summary of Powers book it states:"Paul's essential notion of salvation is that of participationism. Because of their unity with Christ, the believers are conceived by Paul as sharing or participating in Christ's fate, including both his death and his resurrection." > http://www.campbellsville.edu/Websites/cu/images/Library/Campbellsville_Review/Vol_4/Jesus__Death,_Martyr_Theology,_and_Exemplary_Suffering--Williams.pdf Thus, yes many interpretations are possible, but being intellectually honest I can't ignore that in a historical context, that there is a best (most probable) interpretation that is most honest historically. To fatherman I understand your argument fatherman. No, dying for your country is not suicide. IF you read the articles I mention above and saw what I see when reading the NT, you’d see that the theme of Paul and Mark is not dying in a just war, but seeking to IMITATE the Messiah, who suffered and died a martyr. Thus Paul and Mark, are essentially saying to take up your cross, meaning suffer and die a martyr to earn salvation. This is why, you read of Christians seeking martyrdom, some even asking to be thrown into the lions den because for them it was their ticket to heaven. Now you can say these early Christians were interpreting Paul and Mark the wrong the way, but then again, that is rather costly misinterpretation don't you think? And I am staring to think that yes, many of the maryyrs died senselessly. For example, Perpetua should not have sought death as she did. I find her actions unethical personally, given her family needed her. See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/martyrs.html I mean did the martyrs lead to the spread of Christianity? Yes, but at what cost to their lives? Like Marcus Borg I am agnostic about the afterlife, for all I know they died for nothing? And my understanding of history is that Constantine was responsible for Christianity surviving and being turned into a world religion. And if these martyrs were inspired by Paul and these other Gospels encouraging a martyr's suicide, then what use do these texts hold today? Yes we can cut and paste the nice bits. But then why not do as Jefferson did and cut and paste the whole NT to our liking? I used to see it the way you JosephM and fatherman put it, just pick your emphasis. Again, I am well read in the progressive Christian stance. I favor it over fundamentalist that’s for sure. I even wrote a short unpublished book championing the Progressive view: no hell, no literal Satan, Tillichian ground of Being, a metaphorical lens, Jesus as Cynic Sage, etc. I still champion this. But as my studies have broadened my views are being tested. It started when I re-read the NT using the Unvarnished NT, so I could better understand the text. It then became clear to me that the "authentic Paul" was clearly preaching being possessed by Christ (See: 1 CORINTHIANS 11:3–16: SPIRIT POSSESSION AND AUTHORITY IN A NON-PAULINE INTERPOLATION by CHRISTOPHER MOUNT. cmount@depaul.edu DePaul University, Chicago, IL 60614) and suffering and dying as Jesus did (again, See the works referenced above). We can agree to disagree on interpretation. But I think the scholarship is clear on the martyr emphasis, and my own reading of Paul and Mark, makes it clear to me these scholars are correct. Now, given that, is there still a way to salvage the NT and revere it as a Progressive Christian? My own attempt to be the apologist for Progressive Christianity has been this: Why does Paul and the synoptic Gospels have to be the definition of the Christian path? Were there not many ways to be Christian? Like the so-called Gnostics? Or why not take the position of Elaine Pagels, who shows how the author of the Gospel of Judas was against the martyr emphasis, see: Early Christianity's Martyrdom Debate By David Van Biema Wednesday, Mar. 07, 2007. http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1596991,00.html If there is no canon as a progressive Christian then martyrdom is not the only way to be a Christian. Also, there were Christians who rejected Paul and Mark’s martyr mythology, which the author Douglas Boin talks about in his book Coming Out Christian in the Roman World. If there were Christians who rejected martyrdom then Paul and Mark would not be the only expressions of Christianity. There is also a New New Testament, that Crossan supports. In this book, so-called Gnostic texts are added. Thus you have disagreement in the same book. This is my best attempt at an apologetic. But then it gets to a point that there is no revered cannon, then what’s the point of the label Progressive Christian? If there is no canon, why assemble at all? Why not just cut and paste from all the holy books and just be "spiritual but not religious"? I am not trying to be argumentative, again I am in favor of the liberal view over the fundamentalist one. I really did write a short e-book championing progressive Christianity, until I faced this snag of apocalyptic martyrology. If I am going to be intellectually honest, when I read these texts word for word from a scholarly perspective, they have less and less relevance to me, as this apocalyptic, interim ethic, and maryrology spills over from nearly every page of the NT. Even Borg (may he rest in peace) and Crossan admit Paul was wrong about the end of the age, but then they say just get over it. But what if Paul (and the author of Mark) was not just wrong about the end of the age but how to live? What does it mean to revere his writings if his emphasis was on denying life, being celibate if one is able, and being literally possessed by the Messiah Spirit, and seeking a noble death as a martyr for the Messiah? Do you see my conundrum?

I have read almost every book by Crossan, Spong, McLaren, and Borg. I have found a way to be a progressive Christian in the face of biblical slavery, sexism, and theism, etc. But one issue that has tripped me up and I struggle with is the issue of the NT being pro-martyrdom. I have been reading several articles by academics like David Seeley, Paul Middleton, and others, whose combined scholarship seems to say that the NT on whole is an alleged “suicide death cult.” At least that is my take away. For example, when I read the authentic letters of Paul, he seems to be all about denying life (e.g. he suggests celibacy, etc.) to be with Christ; and the Gospel message of “take up your cross,” according to these scholars, is about literally dying a martyr as Jesus did. To take just one example, in an article I found online titled Death with Honor: The Mediterranean Style Death of Jesus in Mark, the author John J. Pilch, Ph.D, it essentially argues that the Gospel message is a son being obedient to the discipline of the Mediterranean father. As a modern man who was not raised on shame and honor in this way, I find these themes hard to swallow. For a good summary of this theme I am talking about, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs So my question is how can I reinterpret this as a Progressive Christian living in the modern world who values life and who lives in the US (who is not up against Rome where you were asked to worship Caesar not Christ)? How can this idea of actively seeking voluntarily death as a martyr and its underlying fatalistic denial of life, which is a pervasive theme in Paul and the Gospels (according to these scholars), be dealt with from a progressive Christian perspective? In other words, how can I still value the writings of Paul and the Gospels when their main message seems to be life-denial and actively seeking to die a martyr in imitation of Jesus in order to assure one’s place in heaven?