thormas

9 hours ago, PaulS said:

Many, many people have broken the law and caused disruption to the majority, only to be viewed looking back as exceptional agents for change that we now look favourably on.

Imagine if Rosa Parks had never defied the order to be a good ###### and sit at the back of the bus.

What if nelson Mandela never fought against the majority rule of white apartheid.

Martin Luther King was arrested for 5 times in his fight for civil rights of black people.

The list goes on.  Myself, I think the minority that are pushing for change regarding these confederate statues will be shown to be on the right side of history when generations look back on now.

You are exactly right. And we can also include the late John Lewis and many religious leaders across time.

We can even include unsung 'ordinary' people: ex. VP Pence was at a local school last week in the next town and some of the protestors were two rising freshman a local public school. Both  ahead of their time, both against the social norm on display that day and both involved in change.

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Then let them say so without malice. There would be no disagreement here. 

Yet many, for years upon years, decade upon decade (and longer) have said it without malice and yet there remains disagreement and much of it is malicious and hate filled. 

History and story along with the monuments can find a home in a history museum. If it is important, "they will come" (and if not it will fade with the years). 

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Carification, okay ...

'right' used as  - morally good, justified, or acceptable.        Society or the rulers at the time dictate and establish what is right , morally good, justified, or acceptable at any current point in time. It may or may not be agreeable to an individual and he/she may be ahead of their time but the consequences remain  until the change occurs.     "right" in the sense of true or correct as a fact is not applicable in my statement.

It is that (unique?) individual or small group of individuals who are 'ahead of their time' and disagree with the 'status quo' who are (or make) the change.

Thus we have relevant.

thought I'd help you out :+}

36 minutes ago, JosephM said:

As far as making something right or not right goes, that to me is irrelevant. I simply do not view it that way  since reality and the evolution of collective consciousness dictate societal norms that will ultimately change with time.

Needs a clarification.

There have been others throughout history and in different lands and cultures who have (attempted to) 'make things right:' they have gone against societal norms and have changed the world (or the world they touched). Thus the expression 'before their time.' Is this not relevant? 

Perhaps rather than suggesting 'patience grasshopper' we should suggest 'wisdom and compassion grasshopper.'

14 hours ago, Burl said:

Time to throw AJ into all this.

I have read her before but never seen her and never seen her like this: she is great.

Good find.

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

Some of the things Erhman's scholarship has to say about Paul (in no particular order):

I do see some continuities between what Jesus had to say and what Paul had to say (about which I’ll say some things in my next post), but at the end of the day, it sure seems to me that they had different understandings of “salvation.”   Jesus had an urgent message to deliver about the coming kingdom of God to be brought by the Son of Man for those who were obedient to God; and Paul had an urgent message to deliver about the return of Jesus for the “saved” – those who believed in Christ’s death and resurrection.

Paul inherited his understanding of the death and resurrection of Jesus from those who came before him, even if he understood its significance for Gentiles differently from his predecessors. But I am asking if the gospel that Paul preached is essentially the same or different from the message of Jesus. A very good case can be made, of course, that they are fundamentally different.

I have at times wondered if Christianity would have survived without Paul. The history is that they weren't doing too well as a Jesus devoted sect of Jews, as time marched on. Would they have been able to survive? Unless one takes the theistic position that God would have 'provided' and all would have worked out, the question remains.

Paul, as Ehrman states, did preach a different message. He reached out to the Gentiles and he preached Jesus and he had to deal with the delay of the fulfillment of the Kingdom Come.  

The message was changed, Christianity survived and today we can make our own decisions (while referencing both Jesus and Paul) about 'salvation' and about Jesus.

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

I don't see any cancel culture oriented people wanting to change history or change the past, they just want it acknowledged that hero worship of racist figures should not continue unchallenged. 

That is exactly it. No one is ignoring the history or wants it cancelled or changed. They know the history (all too well), they want, as you have clearly stated, an acknowledgement that the statues of racist figures should not go unchallenged, (and) that they be removed (placed in a museum) ..........and perhaps we begin a new time when we live up to the constitution: that all men are created equal.

I live in NC and the University of NC at Chapel Hill just decided to change the name of 3 buildings named after people who do not deserve to be so honored. One of those buildings was my daughter's last dorm and for that reason I had some very sentimental feelings toward it (and I admit I never stopped to think or consider its namesake, it was just the name of the dorm). However, I saw a black female student saying how the names made her feel and I thought "change them." Simply change them and make it a bit better for her, for other black students: make it a new day, make them 'feel' welcome...............and the university will be better for it, we will all be better. 

Why would any 'caring' human being not be willing to support the removal of such impediments to our brothers and sisters, to all of us feeling and being equal?

..........bottom line is that the trumpster is a cancer on the country. His latest is just more of the same crap: still hawking his favorite medicine and a Alien DNA/demon believing doctor and then suggesting a delay of the election - not even in his power and shot down by all, including the Republicans.

1 hour ago, Burl said:

Time to throw AJ into all this.

 

I was just looking at two of her books. Good get.

11 minutes ago, Burl said:

Eusebius is the sole source for early church history except for Acts and a few lines of Josephus.

The old GoogleDoc scan is painful to read.  Paul Meier (sp?) has a great modern translation.  That really should be on your bookshelf, or order it from a library.

Thanks did a little checking and there are some questions about him. Do you know if anyone else corroborates Paul and the Romans?

Will check Amazon.

4 minutes ago, Burl said:

Eusebius, chap. XXII.  Also the source for Paul as the author of 1&2 Timothy.

Thanks, will explore but is Eusebius to be trusted as a historian?  It's been a while since I thought about him.

1 hour ago, Burl said:

Saul changed his name to Paul after his theophany.  Saul was in cahoots with the Romans.

I do know about Saul to Paul as it is written.

Source for Paul and the Romans?

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Change can happen by understanding it in the context of the time period. Sure some are offended by these historical markers. Let each community vote on it and let society speak for itself.

Many do understand the historical context of both the actual civil war and also the context of Jim Crow, the KKK, Wallace, segregation, profiling, etc. Many/most/all of these statues were erected after the war and influenced by these other periods - which were not worthy of America and its ideal of equality.

Let America vote as what they are supposed to be, one nation (and without voter suppression or scare tactics) and let us see how the American society speaks :+}

37 minutes ago, Burl said:

I think a fair non-theistic reading would be accepting a missionary commitment.

It could certainly include that but seemingly it is not limited to that.

25 minutes ago, Burl said:

Considering that Saul turned traitor to the Romans and became persecuted himself to the point of martyrdom it’s fair to say Paul’s belief that he experienced a theophany was authentic.

Was Paul or Saul in cahoots with the Romans?

I don't doubt the 'theophany' but the question I asked remains. It was Ehrman I believe who provided interesting insight on the use of 'received' in Paul.

18 minutes ago, Burl said:

Yeah, maybe a bit harsh but what trails did he blaze?   He seems negative to me; always doubting, nitpicking and fault-finding.

Fill me in on the trail blazing bit, pardner.

 

He blazed trails for many/some in their quest/need for a Christianity that resonates in their 20th/21st C lives. He was not the first (or the best) but he was among the most influential in the lives of some progressives, including me (although I add again I am far from always in agreement with him). 

He was a gadfly - and they doubt and find fault.............but that is their role.

He also provided answers or, at least, possibilities.

38 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Speak for yourself when you use the word "we all" 😛

In 2016  the polls were certain for a Hillary victory. A lot of people lost a lot of bets.    😛

Just have patience grasshopper and the silent majority will speak when its time. 🙂🙂

Seriously, who ever wins , wins.

Yet maybe this time it would be good for the Democrats to just eat crow and try to cooperate with the president instead of being so divisive after the election. 😄😃😄

Actually it is the USA; it is we all :+}

Regardless of polls or who ultimately wins, the point has been indelibly etched in the soul of America: we are worse because of the trumpster.

It is not a question of crow, it is saying no to what is perceived to be, believed to be and is wrong. 

I liked neither candidate in 2016 and wished Trump well, hoping the incredible weight of the office would have an impact on him and he would be for us all.....and then he had to lie about the numbers at the inauguration. Really?...........and the tone was set, the hope dashed by the reality of this little, narcissistic man. Such a shame for what could have/should have been.

1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

Concerning the "Spirit of Christ and the "Holy Spirit", one can read in the New Testament that people were filled with the Holy Spirit and or the Spirt of Christ and or God.

I've heard many modern sermons and messages from the pulpit concerning this. I'm pretty sure that I've heard Marcus Borg talk/preach about this (online). I'm thinking that many of the sermons that I've heard, a good number of them online, would consider themselves part of Progressive Christianity, whether they would use a small or capital 'p' I can't be completely exact about. It hasn't been something that focused on that much, (whether they identify with the 'p' word or not), though I'm sure that most if not all of the sermons that I do listen to are what I certainly would consider progressive, that's what I'm looking for when I go online or looking for a church or a talk on Christianity. In fact that's all I'm looking for.

They say things like, "Let us be filled with the Holy Spirt" or "Let us be gathered in the Name and the Spirit of Christ", "Let us be filled with the Spirit of God and Es Grace and Es Wisdom" If I have time I'll try to find you some examples, or the next time I watch one I'll post you a link.

Okay but what does that mean from (not from a theistic viewpoint) a progressive Christian perspective?

1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

I agree that he was "brilliant", he was also sometimes, 'not so brilliant'. This is not so uncommon among people who are considered brilliant or even geniuses. 

I'm sorry that he got executed in Rome and that I don't, and that a number of people don't agree with All of his ideas, but there it is. I suppose I don't agree with All of Socrates ideas  either although he died for the sake of Athens and Democracy. It doesn't mean that I don't like Democracy.

How much time and acquaintance Paul actually had with Peter and James is another matter. Did he only spend 15 days with them, and this was after he himself had been in ministry for 3 years? When were is letters written in relation to this meeting? Before and after or just after? I'd have to research this more before I have a full perspective on the subject. Here is an interesting article on this

Perhaps this is for a separate post but where was he not so brilliant - acknowledging of course that he was a 1st C man writing with the insights and limitations of that time and understanding Jesus in his Jewish context?

I wasn't looking for sympathy for Paul, I was just acknowledging the fact of his commitment. So too Socrates (where do you disagree with Socrates?).

Indeed 'there it is' and it seems rather obvious that some of those people have no idea what writings (as we have discussed) are actually Paul's and/or how to understand him.

The time spend with Peter and James is indeed a question as is when in his ministry he visited them. However, without having a definitive answer it is a bit unfair to judge and/or dismiss Paul. Paul and Acts disagree on when Paul went to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles of Jesus. 

Larry Hurtado writes that Paul (the letters, written in the 50/60s) reflects an understanding of what the earliest community was doing in the early 30s: "....Jesus-devotion reflected in Paul’s letters, including the incorporation of the exalted/resurrected Jesus into the liturgical life of believers all goes back to the earliest circles of the Jesus-movement in Jerusalem." The conclusion is that Paul did not invent but inherited the earliest community's take on Jesus. The question is then when and how often did Paul interact with either James and Peter or members of that community who traveled outside of Jerusalem. 

Did Paul receive his knowledge from Jesus directly (as he describes) or did he 'receive' it from others? And there is some interesting commentary on that from some of the scholars.

36 minutes ago, Burl said:

Saint Paul is highly regarded because he was touched by God, and because he sacrificed his life and his career in order to evangelize the gentiles.  Paul is the reason Christianity is the foundation of Western civilization.

Spong is almost completely unknown, and he has had zero influence on Christian exegesis.  He is just another privileged white male priest who had a couple radical ideas which failed to gain acceptance.

A bit harsh on Spong as he was a trail blazer both as a priest/bishop and as a writer. Plus he is extremely well known in progressive Christian circles.

13 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

It was JS Spong that introduced me to Progressive Christianity and lead me to this website. When I first came here, like 5-6 years ago I expected this forum to be a bit more Spong-y and be more about his ideas and outlooks. Since then I've come to realize that PC covers a wider umbrella, though Spong's ideas are still appreciated and celebrated.

For myself, I don't know if I care so much if ideas come from biblical theologians or biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman is considered to be one of this countries leading biblical scholars, it would be interesting to see what he has to say about Paul specifically.  Most people, including biblical scholars tend to stick to their own agenda and find information and ideas and evidence that supports their own point of view. I don't expect many people to be much different.

Actually, I don't think I care so much if an idea comes from a scholar or a theologian or an insightful layperson, or even a child or just an everyday person. What matters the most is if an idea or outlook is good or not. If it is good, insightful, helpful and if it reflects the Light and Insight and Spirit of God. Not whether it was written or expressed by person A, B or C...

What "wild speculation" are you talking about? I don't quite understand your statement.

Thanks for reading

Check out Ehrman's blog and he wrote a book entitled "Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene.'

My feeling is that for medical issues I really want to deal with experts. So too for the Bible: I value the best of these biblical scholars who are in agreement on numerous issue and I also compare and contrast them on other issue where  there is a difference of opinion. As evident in our discussion of Paul, it makes a difference if one understands that Paul did not write much of what he is accused. Plus, I think some of Paul's writings are dense and an expert interpreter is helpful. 

I disagree with your comments on biblical scholars. Of course, since they are human, they have their histories, education, limitations, etc. - however, the best, that means the 'critical biblical scholars' follow the evidence and do their best to present their research, honestly wrestle with issues and freely admit their limitations. So too the theologians. To dismiss them wholesale seems to be pre-judging them.

I distinguish between wisdom and knowledge: I agree that wisdom can come from anyone but these scholars are first providing knowledge. I have found that these scholars 'light the way' so that the Spirit of God can be more clearly discerned (for me). 

p.s I consider Spong's comments on Paul and Mary (previously mentioned) to be wild speculation not based on the readings but imposed on the letters and gospels.

22 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Does Paul have more authority than most Christians and the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit speaking through many, more or most Christians? A lot of Progressive Christians strongly disagree with some of his ideas, while they agree with and even strongly agree with others. This is usually our relationship to any other human being. We agree and disagree, sometimes strongly, sometimes not as much.

Paul has been raised to the status by many people as being the absolute and infallible word of God, simply by regard of who he is and how he is placed in the bible, not ness. by what he says or what his points of view are.

Spong disagrees with this. A lot of Progressive Christians disagree with this also.

As I read Burl and as I understand it, Paul is so highly regarded because of his brilliance (and sacrifice) in the early year of Christianity which culminated in his execution by Rome. When you mention Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit, I have no real idea what you actually mean in progressive Christian terms. Paul never met Jesus but he did know some of his disciples including his brother James and Peter. 

What PCs disagree with Paul and again if it is pseudo-Paul, it is not Paul. I also disagree that Paul or anyone is the absolute, infallible word of God ........but this is not a contemporary understanding and it makes sense that many PCs would reject it. Paul's place in the Bible is after the Gospels although historically he was the first 'writer' in the Christian community and his high regard had everything to do with what he said and what his point of view was.

I agree that Spong is rightfully highly regarded..............just not infallible :+}

The trumpster is really sad and we all are worse off because of his ignorance and negligence.

Rather than talk about revelation from God in the writing of the Bible, I have come to consider it the other way around: human insight or discernment regarding their 'experience of the Divine.'

Thus someone at a later date can have a different insight however if they value the Bible or, for example, Christianity they must also be mindful of previous insights. One of my favorite theologians, Gabriel Moran, wrote a book entitled 'The Present Revelation' and there is the idea that one must always have one foot 'planted' in the insights of the earliest community and Jesus as we step into the future with the other foot (our discernment). 

Honestly I don't really focus on the Old Testament much at all and consider much of what is written to be time/culture bound and not necessarily relevant for today.