thormas

I was just referring to the North Carolina statement - mine. Who, on behalf of the Bible, does not claim inerrancy? And some Christians believe it, correct?

I disagree as Paul is not a hyper-fundamentalist - actually isn't it the Fundamentalist who would not be concerned and just accept the gospels 'as is' and accept the authors are as indicated or, regardless of who it is, inspired and inerrant? I would think the progressives who see the gospels, NT and OT as human products, would wonder about authors, right? Just out of curiosity, if divinely inspired, does that also mean inerrant? Don't those who accept inspiration also believe that revelation has ended? And, of course I guess this all turns on how one understands 'revelation.'

Agree, it is a bit long winded. 1. There are no originals, that milk has been spilled and it is time to move on. The gospels may or may not be accurate (you don't know definitively, one way or the other) but it is what we have. Some scribes could be wrong but whether they were or not, on the most important stuff, is unknown. So, again, the gospels either have value and are reliable (even with the acknowledgement that the genres might be foreign to some and their worldview is no longer accepted) or they are not. 2. Even with scholarly investigation and interpretation on whether there was a Temple Cleaning, of a fig tree incident or what Jesus meant with the comments on family or prayer, there is no interpretation that ends up with a (radically different) Jesus whose life, teachings or actions support the harm Christians do in the world. There is no MUST about interpretation, the only MUST is reading what is actually written. I have asked you to show me this different Jesus; to show me, not just a line or an episode but stories, teachings, sermons, baditutes that results in a Jesus who condones or provides justification for the harm Christians do. You haven't; you can't. 3. Conflating what is in the gospels with other NT or OT writings can be dangerous. As an example, if a minister says Jesus was against homosexuals, he/she is wrong. They are taking Paul or the OT (or their own prejudices) and reading them into Jesus. The minister is not reading what is actually there - in the NT gospels. So, we all can say of such ministers, "you are wrong." Jesus did not say this; Jesus (also) did not silence women; Jesus did not say women couldn't be priests (that is specific to Catholics); Jesus did not hate or encourage discrimination against Jews and on and on. Actually, this position would have helped many millions of people who have suffered throughout history. To be able to say, "No, you are wrong, Jesus never said that" is powerful. Think: the harm caused by this minister can (begin to) be alleviated simply by reading what is there; no Gospel author ever wrote, based on the remembrance of Jesus, what the minister supposes is there! The minister has not misinterpreted, he simply can't read! 4. Concerning attacking abortion clinics and employees: I don't need legal cases, I simply requested the justification based on the Jesus of the gospels. Like the minister (above), the response would be the same, "You (meaning these particular Christians) are wrong, Jesus never said or condoned or supported or justified such actions." If Jesus speaks to them in this way (bombing, hurting, killing) in the gospels, fine: where, in detail? I know such attacks and justifications happen (I actually have a TV, a computer and I read the news), I am simply saying they can't read. Same goes for the Pope, if he bases it on Jesus himself: where? It was not a misinterpretation, it is reading what does not exist, thus this Pope misunderstood Jesus! Where is the confusion that leads to the Crusades in the gospels? Even at face value, turning tables over in the Temple or getting pissed at a fig tree when you're hungry leads Christians to kill, rape, pillage and destroy not only Muslins but Jews and Greek Christians along the way and it's on Jesus? Come on Paul, that doesn't even make sense. Again, not a misinterpretation, not even a misunderstanding - because there is nothing there, in the words or actions of Jesus, that justifies or encourages or blesses these actions. The Crusades are an area of interest to me (actually just finished a history of the fall of Jerusalem,then I move to Acre and Richard) and it is obvious that more, much more was going on than religion. I have no problem acknowledging that many of the people across the various crusades truly believed that they were doing this for Jesus, that God willed it and they would remit their sins. However, this simply was wrong. This is more basic than different interpretations; it is a simple acknowledgement of what is or is not actually written in the gospels. I am not staggered by human fraility or by differing interpretations but I am constantly surprised by the inability of people, past and present, to read and comprehend. The meek seems to be an easy one but perhaps for another time. Not sure who is harmonizing but as long as no one says that Jesus means the meek are justified if they kill everybody in their way so they get their inheritance, we should be okay. 5. I don't philosophize about death at a wake and I don't do biblical scholarship over Christmas celebrations during the season of Joy. We can discuss, to our hearts contend the problems with the 5th gospels, at a later date. 6. My concern (I have no issues :+} is that people interpret the gospels and do harm because they put in what is not there. No one was talking percentages but the gospels are indeed about Jesus as remembered and presented by communities of faith. We probably understand gist differently so I will let you take that up with Allison for a fuller understanding. However, I have never considered Allison or the gospels dangerous. Thanks for the last word - but if you must go on, I'm still available once aI finish the yard :+}

Sorry Paul, the version is not mine (I did not create the gospels), it is the one presented by the NT gospels. However the determination as to whether or not it 'speaks' or is meaningful to me, for my life, is indeed mine. There is one version (or 4 if we're being precise); it is there for the reading and it presents a picture of Jesus, with theological insights based on the belief that he is the Risen Messiah of God and they are intended to be Good News. We don't create our own versions of the gospels; we read what is before us. As free beings, anybody can give their spin or version on both easy and more difficult passages but it doesn't mean that their spin matches the reality that is given. Simply, we can be wrong. Scholars recognize this in the popular ideas surrounding Christmas. We have combined the 4 gospels into a 5th gospel, our own creation - however our singular Christmas version of the birth of Jesus does not exist and is not found in the 4 separate gospels of the NT. Is this okay? Seems so: no one gets hurt but they can't reconcile what they read in the actual NT gospels because our 'version' does not exist in any of the gospels as written (at different times). But you do get people swearing that ‘their version’ is “in the Bible.” Is this version or interpretation valid? Well, no it’s a mash up and our own creation. But it is easy to see the (vast) difference between the actual text and our 'interpretation' of that text. Care should be given to see and read what is actually in the gospels and extra care should be given to understand (correct interpretation) what is actually there (especially as it is rich with symbols, metaphors, parables, written from different theological points of view and expressing a world view that is no longer accepted). So, we read what is there, attempt to understand it, seek help for greater insight and ultimately we have to decide if it is important enough to have an impact on how we live our lives. There are no originals! Scholars believe that we have copies (even copies of copies), which assumes that there was something considered valuable enough to replicate. Furthermore, given the criteria used by scholars, the gospels writers use of Q, L and M and/or Mark reveal something of the historical Jesus. I love Ehrman, have read his books, have gone to numerous lectures by him, like the fact that he is an agnostic but I always like to spread the wealth and get the opinions of others like Allison (a Christian), Levine (a Jew), Verma (the expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls), Luke Timothy Johnson (a Christians, perhaps even a Catholic), Fredrekison (not sure how of her faith, or lack thereof, which makes it fun) and others. Again, I suspect they would love to stumble upon the originals but none seem to share your position or concern to the degree you do. Many debate stuff that is of particular interest to scholars (I can give examples) but the lesson to be learned for the best scholars is that do not impose their ‘version’on the gospels; they are diligent is being objective. So again, what are the other stories that confound the Jesus of the parables and the beatitudes? And what Christians are you talking about that would then say, "hey, given this 'version' of Jesus, the crusades, the inquisitions, our treatment of gays and women and minorities are a go." What are their versions, not simply confusion or questions about this or that verse or episode, what are there different versions of Jesus that would justify the great harm that you have listed? Sounds more like Thanos than Jesus! Who believes that the Temple cleansing episode gives Christians a green light for aggression, bombing and murder at abortion clinics? How do they justify and balance this ‘interpretation’ against the bulk of the Gospel(s) witness of Jesus? Are there books on this position? If the Temple incident did take place, were there reported deaths, broken bones, any swords or spears used at the temple cleaning or were some tables overturned? And really, someone sees this as a rationale for bombing an abortion clinic and actually breaking bones, burning, blowing up and killing people? And this rationale holds up when these solid Christians consider the entirety of the Gospel(s) witness of Jesus? And you remain comfortable saying, “hey, who know what the real Jesus taught, what he approved, this interpretation (and resulting action) is as valid as any other?” Really? This all sounds like the Pope and many of those who took up the crusades: "find what they need so they can do what they want." This is not competing versions of Jesus; this is careless, selective reading and not even a proper use of How to Read the Bible for Dummies. Let's add, "I hate my family because Jesus told me it was okay and I just killed them because I got pissed like he did in the Temple." You're reaching or these ‘Christians’ are. But did the Temple incident happen? Indeed, scholars agree that something happened and Ehrman points to Sanders at Duke for the best explanation: Jesus was 'acting out a parable' and, by the fact he was not arrested in the temple (the size of 25 football fields) it was a very small and symbolic incident. So the most that one could take for this would not be bombing an abortion clinic but, like many do, perhaps protesting outside of a clinic, stopping passing traffic or perhaps even painting something (not a Nazi symbol) on their door -but no harm! How many serious Christians, not those looking for 'justification' for abhorrent actions, would simply take this one incident and not consider the whole Jesus who they (supposedly) have come to know? This is not one version vs. another; it is a simple matter of reading, reflection and consideration, placing this in the context of the man Jesus and, perhaps, asking for help to better understand it. Like the X-Files, the truth (or assistance) is ‘out there’all one had to do is look or ask or Google. The fig tree - how significant is this in the first place for most people? But it is a bit weird and fun........... so, a parable acted out? Did the tree literally die? So, again context: ask or ......google. It's really not that difficult. But are you suggesting someone reading this would see a justification (based on their version), in spite of all else the gospels present about Jesus, for torching trees in say California and starting horrific forest fires? Perhaps a nut would but that's a different kind of tree (or plant or shrub). The Miracles: as a Catholic, I totally accepted them, but I don't now take them literally - however Jesus remained and, I suspect, grew even more important. But again as you know, the gospels are theology, they are Good News for salvation; they are not Omarosa recordings or NFL game day videos. Were the gospel writer wrong about miracles or were they telling good news in mythological stories? Scholars acknowledge that Jesus, in his time, was known as a wonder worker (of course we have very different ideas of what is a wonder or a miracle today). You must realize that the 'originals' that were copied, would have contained miracles stories, as did the oral tradition that led to them. You seem to be looking for black and white, left or right, this or that, truth or fiction: that is not what we have, not what the oral tradition presented, not what the original 'originals' presented. Yet, there is truth! However, that is enough exegesis - although I am here all week. Actually, my questions (In my Note from the previous post) were a polite way of explaining and answering your questions; it is a time honored way to invite thought, consideration and collaboration. The answer is in my questions to you. One can read the gospels for him/herself and get a very clear understanding of Jesus. Some help might be necessary to translate from the 1st to the 21st century and, perhaps, additional help for the more vexing passages. All that is required is time and effort (which are not always easy in a busy world). This is why churches and Christian communities need to emphasize not just liturgy but education (there is a hunger for it as evidenced by the sell out crowds that Ehrman, Spong and others get. There is no Jesus without Christianity, there is no Jesus outside the scriptures (canon or extracanonical) so we do know what we have. Then there are two issue: understanding the particular (including the more perplexing verses) in light of the whole and then being Christ in the world. Do you really think the harm Christians have done and continue to do in the world is a matter of interpretation or would be solved with the originals? Do you really think people pour over the NT say "AHA" and then do horrible things? People do, have done and will continue to do horrible things in spite of what is written. Where is the justification for the pastors who have continually committed adultery, the church officials who fleece their TV audience of their small incomes, for Catholic priests who abuse and rape kids and blackmail seminarians into having gay sex with them, for Christians killing or even risking killing anyone when they bomb abortion clinics, for Evangelicals supporting Trump who admits he abuses women, who lies daily (but his favorite verse is two Corinthians ........walk into a bar). The gospel of Jesus Christ, written by his own hand in the original Aramaic, wouldn't make a difference. What is the interpretation of Jesus in the gospels that justifies parents who turf their children out because they're gay or commit acts of harm because that's what they believe Jesus wants. Where, specifically does Jesus say to do this to your gay kids or seriously harm (or kill) others? Where does Jesus say he wants or approves this? And, why do these Christians ignore the command to love, forgive; love, forgive; and, love, forgive? Why do they not see the sacrifice for others that is part and parcel of (true) Christian life? This is not about Jesus or what we know of Jesus - this is about men and women at their worst! Justifications or not, originals or copies, they would do this anyway perhaps for the simple reason that it was never actually seen as Good New or seen, never really taken up. After all, the Christian must take up the cross and selfishness must die so Love thrives. If not, it is for naught. Jesus played for Jerusalem? See, that is a misreading, he starred at Galilee High and even if you're talking the pros, the daily commute for practice would have killed him. Also, there were no Christians until after Jesus was crucified. If one sees in Jesus (himself) a reason for the harms you have listed in an earlier post or the additional harms I listed above, they are simply wrong. It is not a matter of interpretation - what Christian can look upon the cross and say "yes" to any of the harms we have listed? What Christian lifts a verse from the gospels (without every attempting to understand it if there are questions), ignores the rest of the radically different verses in those same gospels and then goes with an action that is at odds with the Christ of faith? Someone who wants to do what they want to do, who doesn't want to feel bad about it or themself, and needs a reason and what better one if Jesus did it or even better if God wills it? I see what you call 'interpretations' of Jesus. I have simply said that some of what you have presented as sample teachings are not in the gospels (i.e. not Jesus) and others are and there is a correct interpretation - sometimes a closet is not a closet, sometimes an action is a parable, sometimes the man spoke in parables and we don't - so we need to understand to get to the truth or the point of a verse or passage. However, someone who says, "hey I can now bomb an abortion clinic" has mis- in-ter-pret-ed; totally missed what is 'there.'

Paul, My focus has been on the gospels of the NT canon. There are no originals, as you have said; the Jesus we have is found in the NT gospels. Even if augmented by gospels outside the canon, that would meet the criteria of scholars – there are no originals; so we are back to Allison’s insight. In these gospel stories, there is no justification for any of the harm inflicted by Christians throughout their history. For anybody to say there is justification is to go beyond interpretation, to what is not there. Whether one accepts the NT accounts as literal or not, there are the stories, the parables, the beatitudes, the sermons of Jesus which go to how to live and treat others; they are ‘right there’and require no great learning to interpret. What you listed were not 'mere samples of the teachings of Jesus." They are, for the most part, the writings of others. If we go back to the gospels (what is remembered in the Oral tradition, in Q, in M, in L) these 'sample teachings' are not Jesus; they are not ‘like’ (Allison) what the gospels tell us Jesus did and said. Jesus never mentioned the silence of women, slaves and masters or abstaining from blood. When we move to the rest of the Bible, we are met by Paul (silent of women, slaves and masters) and the OT and the Acts references to blood. Here, people might need assistance in reading and interpreting these passages. So, do we know “….which of these Jesus really said and in many cases whether or not he would have approved of this message?" We do: we know that Jesus did not say anything in the OT (he wasn’t born yet) and nothing in Paul (he had been crucified, Paul never met him nor does Paul tell us about the man Jesus). As for approval, he was a Jew but freely followed the spirit and not the letter of the law and the silence of women is at odds not only with the stories of Jesus but also with Paul’s other writings. However, Christianity does have a problem: with the Crusades, the inquisitions, hatred of Jews, judgment on homosexuals, etc. - people bring their own fears, prejudices and needs to the Testaments, to Christianity and find what they need so they can do what they want. This is also a very human problem. Furthermore, the problem would not be resolved if we had the 'originals.' Some would doubt they were the originals, some would be driven to compare and contrast with what we already have and others would simply still have different understandings/interpretations on what is actually written in the originals and what it means. Same old, same old. I know of Bernard but this was also a clash of civilizations and people went on crusade for many reasons which also included profit, glory, land, status, greater possibilities for those who were not the first born sons of Europe and, of course the Pope saw it as a way to redirect the various warriors of Europe on a single, blessed by God, quest (“find what they need so they can do what they want”). Of course, many justified it and said, "God wills it" but on what was that based? Plus, wasn't there the idolatry that the places where Christ was born, crucified and was buried were sacred and deserving of worship? Of course Bernard thought he was right (at least I hope he did, otherwise he was a monster) but was he right? Do you know what, in the gospels of Jesus (which he probably took literally) was his justification for the crusades? Was there any justification based on what is written in the NT? Did Jesus really say anything directly or indirectly that would establish his approval of the crusades? Or, is it just the opposite? Jesus, in the gospel, stops Peter when he raises his sword, to defend - not land, not tombs, not hills or churches - but Jesus himself. Again, not for land, churches or sacred places, not even for himself did Jesus say it was okay to take up the sword. Was it simply a different interpretation or was Bernard, were they all wrong (as you seem to believe)? Can you sit back, perhaps over a cold beer and actually say, "yeah, Jesus would have been for the crusades”(or the inquisition, or the repression, discrimination and murder of the Jews (his own people) or, in spite of having them among his most important followers, the silencing of women)? First Note: this passage of the sword is of interest for the passage you cited: the Peter incident refers to a real sword however the Word of God is a two edged sword that 'cuts into humanity' presenting danger if ignored and opportunity (salvation) if accepted: so indeed Jesus brings and is a sword, the Word of God. How difficult is it to say that Bernard was wrong? If killing others, demeaning women, gays, Jews, burning or bullying non-believers 'speaks to someone' - what is speaking is not the Jesus of the gospels and not his God! Isn’t it rather simple to say this without it being written off as just a different interpretation? The voice that counts is that of Jesus: he 'said and did things like' those presented in the NT gospels and they seem (as any originals must have been to be worthy of copying) to be rooted in the remembrance and stories of his earliest followers; this is the only Jesus we have. We do have some of the other gospels and I think Allison comes into play again: if any gospels present words or works and we can say of them that they echo what we ‘know’ of Jesus in the NT Gospels - then we have something of value (like the sayings gospel of Thomas). If you have a community of like-minded people, they are pretty much in agreement about what is written and what it means. And as others join or are born into it, it is utterly human to give those others what the community believes is right and if a 'member' disagree or goes astray, it seems natural to try to assist and bring them back to the community. The trick, in communities and in families (i.e. with kids) is to do this with a light hand: present, explain and let the other decide for herself. Church communities and families fail at this and it takes greater love and strength to present than coerce. A problem with some church communities is they try to govern and regulate all walks of a believer's life; all Jesus wanted, as is written, is for men and women to change and be ready for (be attentive to) God who is already present and a Kingdom”still coming. As with kids that are loved, so with church members: there is no must, only a continued invitation and presentation. Second Note: isn't the emphasis in the prayer verse not on where (public or closet, i.e. private) but how: with sincerity, focused on God as opposed to showing off, for others, how holy you are - just like the hypocrites (think Trump)? Third Note: doesn't the hating the family verse have to do with the cost of discipleship and having to decide to give everything up in order to follow (similar to the startling answer that Jesus gives to the rich man: give up all and follow). It is not easy and Jesus was preparing those who accept to realize what they were getting into. Plus, did he hate his family, even when they misunderstood him, another NT story? Legend has it that Mary was at his side in death and history has it that James continued his work as the leader of the Jerusalem community.

Agreement - now, if only people interpret the message of Jesus properly :+}

Exactly, that is the issue of resonating or 'speaking' to one in his/her life. However, you note kindness, gentleness, patience, self-control, forgiveness - these are the (fruits of the) 'wisdom' found in the writings. So the wisdom is not the opposite of love, forgiveness, peace, friendliness, acceptance, etc.; the wisdom found in the writings is not expressed in crusades, inquisitions, sexism, homophobia, racism, misogyny, etc. One who justifies such action in the (in this case) NT gospels, in the words and actions of Jesus..............has missed or ignored the wisdom that was presented; has mis-understood what was written.

Of course it has not always been the case that the misinterpretation of the NT gospels by some Christians was seen, by them, as wrong (if it had been, they would have had a different interpretation) but it doesn't follow that their rationale for things like the crusades, the inquisition, the role of women or the treatment of homosexuals is found and justified by the words and actions of Jesus as presented in the gospels of the canon. Where is the exact justification? The same could be asked of Constantine with his Cross in the sky and the words, "In this sign you shall conquer" - where is the basis for that in Jesus? NADA. However, it was a clever and convenient political move for Constantine to unite the empire under one religion - thus one united people. The reason also for him riding roughshod over the Council: unity for his empire rather than the problems and division cause by 'theological disputes.' Do you really think we would have one interpretation if we had the original document? The US have its original documents and we NEVER have competing interpretations! Did you ever get in a car with your wife and even with a map or iPhone, accurate in all details, disagree on how best to get 'there?" It is not about possessing the originals! The problem with organized religion is not that they believe that some things are important, even essential, to participation in their community - it is that for too long, they demanded blind, rote learning and acceptance without understanding (theirs or the adherents born to their particular religions confession). The Catholic Church and any Church that does what you have listed above, in the name of Jesus, is simply wrong - and the best of them recognize this. Those actions are more about Constantine than Christ. I don't belong to any organized Church so I am not involved with nor do I 'gain confidence' from others who agree. However, I am glad for them, for Christianity and the world when they do :+} It is not merely interpretation, some times it is simply asking, "what the hell do you base they on?" and "when you ask WWJD do you really believe and where is it found that Jesus would do that?" It is not mere interpretation - sometimes, reality (in the form of the actual gospels under discussion) just smack you upside the head. Look at the things you are listing. We recognize that some Christians believe they were and are right and justified (be it slavery, homosexuality, the role of women, crusades, Constantine, inquisitions, etc.) - but even you are not buying that. So, my friend, is it merely competing interpretations of a gospel, or a holy man, of life ...........or, on these major issues, are you right and they are simply wrong? Indeed the reality is there are a variety of interpretations about the Bible, but there is a difference between was Mary a virgin or a 'young woman' or the sermon on the mount vs. the sermon on the plain, or was there a Nicodemus, and so on - and whether particular actions (discriminatory, inhuman actions directed at particular people or individuals) can be based on or blamed on Jesus. The former 'interpretations' are fun (for some), intriguing and might have some significance while the latter 'interpretations are deadly and destructive (sometimes literally) and are more than different interpretations or understandings. Again, we can ask: where, specifically, does one find justification and support for such 'interpretations' in the NT gospels - which are really the only works touching on the words and works of Jesus. Original or not, that is what we have and that is what is being 'interpreted.' So, if we place the death of Jesus at 30 CE (give or take a few years given the error in the calendar), the NT gospels are actually 40-65 years after his death. And of course we should allow, as scholars do, for the oral traditions told and practiced in liturgy, the possible existence of Q and the probable existence of the M and L sources - some of which probably trace back to the first generation and were then included in the ongoing understanding and writings of later generations. And, of course there was a human hand (unless you accept traditional notions of revelation/inspiration) and there were other writings, other gospels - some were the gospels of specific communities (Marcion communities for instance). But, as stated previously, some felt that certain of these gospels were not sufficiently apostolic or universal (among the very human criteria for decision) and possibly dangerous. But, again, look at some of those other gosepls. Some were definitely off and 'imaginative' and would not pass the Allison test (above) or Ehrmans's history as probability. So, it was a driver and it is the canon that still exists and remains common in Catholicism and Protestantism. I, for one, love that we have other 'disputed and dismissed' gospels: I am curious and like to see some of what was also in play and see if I agree or disagree with the orthodox 'deciders. Scholars look for multiple attestation of words and actions attributed to Jesus, but I don't remember any great announcement that a number (i.e. multiple) of the 'discarded' gospels independently attested to actions and words of Jesus that would suggest he was not as he is portrayed in the NT canon to the degree that murder, inquisitions, racism and sexism could be based and justified by Jesus himself.

So you might have made $5 in your lifetime - enough for a large coffee :+} However, not really an argument to support a position - like collecting a dollar every time someone says the understandings and action of the racist or sexist- based on their interpretation and understanding of the world or the sexes or the superiority of the white race - is wrong!. That understanding and those actions are, in fact and in truth, simply wrong. So the ones who told you they were wrong are.............right. We have been talking actions that people supposedly track back to the NT canon - on what words or actions of Jesus, presented by the canon, do they base the atrocities that you cited earlier and find, correctly, so offensive and........wrong? Is it really that difficult to make an assessment of whether or not they are wrong in their 'interpretation and understanding' of Jesus? The interpretations and understandings of some people, some of the time or, sadly, all of the time are simply wrong. It If I had a dollar for every mis-interpretation and the laying of evil human actions at the foot of Jesus or God - I would actually own multiple coffee franchises around the world.

They have misinterpreted the gist - which is obvious to those of other faiths, no faith and the Chtistian faith. You have listed the harm done by the interpretations of some - but where is their evidence that their interpretation was correct, on what (the subject is the NT canon ) specific words and actions of the Christ do they base their interpretation?

So it is written, so it is. I accept your stance.

Paul, Apologies for some of the sloppiness of my response. With a hurricane in the air, I neglected to re-read it. Following is a clean version:

Skye, I simply don't see anything as God-steered. There are such problems around the idea that the crucifixion, the planning of the torture and horrible death of one's son, one's child, that it casts God in a light that many, reflecting upon their own parents or being parents, find so despicable that they would never accept this as correct or the God behind it. So too Paul: where is the freedom of man, given by God, if that God usurps that freedom by purposely blinding Paul and forcing his hand? Now, if for Paul, the persecutor of the Christians, something finally dawned on him and he changed - then we have something magnificent: man freely - without prior arrangement - choosing God, even, as Paul did, unto death. And it is not happenstance: God is immanent - present and active in the everyday, ordinary events of human life - in and through creation, especially the human. You read a book, speak to a friend, watch a move, listen to a song and sometimes you realize something, see something for the first time or through the words of another you are caused to look at yourself, see and admit where you were wrong and heeding the words, you change, you become more, you become better. And your friend or others are there, loving you, giving you the encouragement to change (even if neither of you ever puts these words to it). Yet your friend (and the actor, the author, the musician), who 'spoke' to you also needs you, also needs to hear, see and be encouraged, be empowered to change and to live fully. Who owns this word that calls to man, who owns the love that gives man the courage to be, to live? Not us, we all stand in need. One simple reflection: words and love are both gratuitous (gifts given by others) and transcendent (more than: no one owns what they give because they too need to receive it from others). We 'give more' than we have; we 'give more' than we are - we give God. God is the Word that calls man through others; God is the Love given in and by others, giving humanity the courage to Be. God called Paul - but in a way so subtle and in the ordinary events of his life and it might have taken some time but then Paul describes it, perhaps in the only way he can: he is blinded by the light of the Christ; he gets it - finally. This is faith: God's give of self in the ordinary life of man is met by one who, in turns, gives self to God, to Life and becomes the likeness of Life; he becomes Love (and this is incarnation: divinity lives in humanity). Jesus was Fully Human because Divinity lived in him. He did what God was: Love. He was obedient to God- obedience simply means 'what is important to the other, is important to you.' What was important to God was that humanity understand (hear the Word) and have the courage to Be. So too for Jesus: the Word echoed in Jesus and Love lived in him and poured out freely on others; he loved -even unto death. For some, the cross raised high on the hill, becomes the symbol of the Word that calls, the love that empowers until God is All in all.

Paul, I have learned over the years from authors like Ehrman and Dale Allison that the 'gist' is what is most important. Allison writes: "In order for us to find Jesus, our sources must often remember at least the sorts of things he did and the sort of things that he said, including what he said about himself. If the repeating patterns do not catch Jesus, then how can he not forever escape us?" When we read them (gospels), we should think not that Jesus said this or did that but rather: Jesus did things like this, and he said things like that." So in addition to learning not to read the OT literally, I have learned we should not read the NT as if Omarosa were recording Trump :+} So, regardless of the presence or absence of the extra Markan verses, we know, from the sources, somethings about Jesus, and that he died and that his followers believed he had risen to new life in God. All else in literally commentary. The 'validation' is the gist of what we have been given: as Allison said, Jesus did and said things like those presented and remembered in the gospel pictures of him. If I remember correctly, whereas the Sermon on the Mount might have been staged (giving the new law from the mountain unlike Moses who received the law on the mountain) by Matthew, Jesus did say things like the "Blessed are......" statements (and perhaps, again if I remember correctly, some of the actual 'beatitudes' simply not in such an organized setting. This is the 'record' - it is simply not like most modern records. As for alternative voices, we do have some of those but, it remains interesting that if they are at 'extreme odds' with the canon, they would remain suspect (ala Allison, Jesus probably didn't say things like this or do things like that). I know human beings also and it is not just good intentions, we have the gospels, the letters of Paul and other NY writings and we have the work of the best critical biblical scholars and I don't see them relying only on 'best intentions I simply don't have the same concern about 'originals.' Scholars note this, scholars wish we had more and live for a discovery of the original Mark, for example - but their work on what we do have leads them back to the disciples of Jesus. And decades after Jesus' death is amazing - not sure what you mean by "verifying the 'theological' side of these writings with anything that could be original" as the very telling of the stories from the apostles is theological?? It is all theological from the 'get go.' I know and have read numerous critical biblical scholars and I am just not seeing that they share your concern: you seem to be saying it could all be a hoax or a giant misunderstanding, I don't even see Ehrman, the atheist, saying that. There is discussion about this, that to something else and I know Erhman does't buy what is written but he still studies and relies on what is 'there.' When I say it resonates with me, I mean it has meaning for me in my present; but this indicates there is something 'there' that is reliable (ala Allison) that I can examine and decide whether or not it resonates. So, no, I don't buy that there is as misunderstanding to the extent you seem to suggest - nor do the scholars. That should have been past revelation, not part. However, I simply disagree: they were human, they had concerns and intentions but you use words like spin (pejorative) while the writings already existed and had for centuries (and were used in community) and they, ultimately, decided which best presented Jesus. Where is the spin, they weren't doing theology. The councils that spoke of Trinity and the nature of Christ were, but where is the theology, the spin in the agreement of a canon? Was it simply that they said these and not those? Again, I go to Allison: they believed sincerely that these particular writings best presented what Jesus said, did and meant. Just out of curiosity, what are you saying they should have chosen or what the 'true' message of Jesus was? Again, it was not merely a matter of it resonating with them, this was a decision that X, Y & Z were better, more accurate, depictions of Jesus than A, B & C. We have two different issues here and you seem to have locked onto one: resonating in one's present time and greatest accuracy to the past. Ehrman said that 'history is all a matter of greater and lesser probabilities." Plus, have you read any of the non-canonical writings? Therefore, I and I suspect most agree with Allison that the greater probability is that Jesus did and said what is presented in the canon as opposed to what was presented in the other works. In other words, the Synoptics and John, have a greater probability of being historical, i.e. rooted in the actual experience and memory (even with Ehrman's and others work on memories) of his disciples and first followers than other writings. Then, the decision is do these 'speak' to me and have meaning for me in my life. So, bottom line, is that the decision (of the canon) is not merely personal but communal (and the probability of history is with that decision) and thereafter, the decision of its meaningfulness is also communal but ultimately personal. If it is meaningful, then it can be said to be 'good news' to me and a 'revelation' of or an insight into what Life means. It is not mere 'personal feeling'. Not sure about fact being part of revelation but I use the word as interchangeable with insight: as in the meaning of life is revealed, a light switches on, an Aha moment. And, as should be evident, I do not believe in revelation from on high or that the biblical writings were inspired (as traditionally, theistically believed). "So, a determination is made that it is 'right for me' and most serious people would think it is also, 'right' for all: it gets at Truth." Another disconnect, you are talking supposed (and ultimately observable) facts, like the earth being flat, I am talking meaning of life. If one believes, for example with Spong, that in life we should 'love wastefully and be" he believes this is the meaning of existence and how ALL ought to live; he believes it is Truth for ALL. No discovery of a change in factual information will change this. We are talking about very different realities. I meant, as should have been obvious, " I never felt harmed (by Christianity)." I never said Christianity did not do wrong, did not sin either on a macro or a micro level. If I remember you have spoken of what it did 'to you' - it was your story not a recounting of the history of Christianity, only part of the history of Paul. So too, mine was part of the history of me. As to your question: if Christianity is truly understood and lived, there is no possibility of further harm in the world (caused by it). As has been said: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, Christianity has been found difficult and never tried." And then there is Ghandi: " I like your Christ, I don't like Christians - they are so unlike their Christ." (quotes are accurate but not exact). So, the Crusades, the Inquisition, hatred of Jews, hatred of homosexuals, the lesser role of women, and on and on - are not Christian, are not like Christ, are not the image of the Father! You make my point, Christian teaching are not as you say used, they are misused - never understood, never lived in the circumstances under discussion. Again, there is no revelation from on high and they do misunderstand or lack the courage to be. Where does Jesus okay Crusades, Inquisitions, hatred of his own people he came for, hatred for homosexuals, and on and on. Nowhere! Simply nowhere. I have never really liked the OT, especially since Christians believe in a new covenant - but that's me. Too many Christians rely on the OT over their Jesus. There is the truth of Jesus, the truth of most of the great religious figures of history and then there is the little, scared truths of people that are to support nee encourage all the atrocities that you mentioned. Do yu really question which is truth: their way of the way of God/Love? I side with the latter. Your ultimate conclusion seems to be that there is no Truth or we can't know it and live it. Again, I simply disagree and I refer you back to Wonder Bread.

I get that Joseph and, while a Christian, I am not a practicing Catholic (liturgy, sacraments, authorities, etc.). I taught in Catholic schools for 12 years and met great and not so great people; I went to Catholic schools from kindergarten through grad school and met the best they had to offer and some that needed work - thankfully I met very few jackasses. The authorities get in their own way and many are too concerned with protecting the faith - rather than presenting and explaining. I am not crazy about organizations either but, as I have met good men and women in the Church in my life, I have also read of others (including some of their works) in earlier ages and, my experience is that many, many people, even in organizations, try to do what is best - even at the cost of 'normal' lives, injury and death. Therefore, I allow that many have done that in the past and in the Church. I agree that some leaders do have their own agenda - but, in my experience, not all, not even many. Did some of the Church Fathers have an agenda (did Constantine)? I'm sure they did but did all, did most, did many? We don't know but, as in all walks of life, it was probably a mixed bag. But I allow that, as mentioned before, for some (many?), this was of utmost importance to them because they took seriously their responsibilities - for the community of Christ to survive and thrive in regard to Judaism and other (what they believed to be) harmful versions of Christ. What is important to me is if what is in the canon, what comes from the councils - perhaps after a re-telling or interpretation in light of a 21st C world view and in a language that meets people in their everyday lives - 'reveals' (presents) the meaning of life and how we ought to live. If that happens, then, it is Good News and my religious ancestors, some in spite of themselves, has done their job. In addition, we now have the means to discover some of the 'other' Christianities that might give us further insight and appreciation into God, Life, man.

Paul, I understand that there were many Christianiities, how the canon was developed, how long it took and the connected controversies between what became orthodoxy and heresy. However, even recognizing that there was ego and politics involved, I allow that many/most(?) were serious about Jesus, thought their perspective was most accurate and felt a responsibility to establish the 'correct' understanding of Jesus, his words and his story, because they believed it was the most important thing in the world for them and others. I place value of other gospels outside of the canon but I have to agree that Jesus was not imparting secret knowledge for an elite few (gnosticism) and also that Marcion, who believed Christianity should have no connection with Judaism was simply wrong - and that it was good that such views were opposed. In addition, the 'orthodox' version of the story of Jesus resonates with me (if not read literally or as history or biography). So, I do have confidence (and simply it is what it is) that many did the best they could and I am fine with their product - again if 'interpreted' correctly. As to "how can you know" I'm not looking for definitive 'evidence' but reacting to what I have read about the efforts (and what was opposed) and the finished product. As for the answers to the questions you asked about the inclusion of John's gospel or anything else - there are materials, including Ehrman (too much for here). If we don't accept that the bible is revealed from on high, then it is a human product. We can look at what we have been given, look at other writings from that era and decide what best speaks to us. In addition, it was inevitable, if it was to succeed, that the story of Jesus would have to move into the greater world and the very human response would be to try to make sense of Jesus using their (ex, Greek) understanding of the world and their philosophical systems - we have always done this and continue it today. It was also inevitable that some of these new understandings would be at odds and serious, concerned believers would feel compelled to 'correct' such views and 'protect' people. What else is new? How they were meant to be read and how they are read today is one of the continuing issues. I have read Spong who believes that writers were not always meant to be taken literally and I have read others (Ehrman included?) who say we cannot say that the writers did not believe what they wrote and did not want to be taken at their word. So the beat goes on. But that is the point, to a large part, of it all: does it 'speak' to wherever and whenever it finds one? Does it enable one to make sense, to answer some to the questions posed by the very fact that they find themselves existing and ask about it? If it resonates with my present experience; if it makes sense within my present world view (a modern sense of the universe as opposed to a 3 tied universe of the ancients, for example) and how I understand my world (for some their philosophical system) then it is, what Moran calls, a present revelation. A canon that only speaks of a part revelation of God is useless to those living later unless it can speak to them and 'reveal' the same God (Meaning) that was revealed or discovered by our ancient ancestors. This is what I mean by 'speaks to me.' And, the Christian should always 'look over their shoulder' at what was given in the past (the canon): if there are those today who point to a 'special knowledge' for a chosen few that was given by Jesus in the past and is still available today - one can say that is not the core belief about this Jesus that has been valued and past down through the ages. If one believes that Jews have nothing to do with Christianity and they justify this with an appeal to the ancient Christianity, on can san say again, this is not what was presented by the followers of Jesus (all Jews) and is 'out of whack' with the tradition, the canon, the ancient witness. For the one who considers himself Christian or for whom Christianity is important, there is the determination as to whether or not, Christianity 'speaks' to him and in moving into the future to take some care that they are in agreement with what has been valued from it s beginnings This is much more than a ""it feels right so it must be true to some extent point of view." For many, the determination of whether and what is right (or wrong and thus discarded) is a matter of intense reading, study, reflection and an ongoing decision that 'this or that makes sense," it 'resonates with my experience, it provides 'answers' to the question(s) of Life. So, a determination is made that it is 'right for me' and most serious people would think it is also, 'right' for all: it gets at Truth. As an example, I would say it is 'right for me' that love is the actual meaning of life: it is the be all and end all. It's like Wonder Bread - it build us in many ways :+} Put love into a situation and there is life, remove or deny it and not so much. And, if I believe this about my life (and from my experience and reflection on that experience), I also believe it is right or true ........for all. Now if someone disagrees, that is fine but it doesn't mean that I do not still believe I am in line with many/most others that we have stumbled onto Truth. There are priests and then there are priests. Plus this wasn't a group meeting in a particular month of a particular year, this was decades, centuries, with multiple priests trying to do something they believed was their responsibility. So, we do have many of the other writings and most acknowledge that 'orthodoxy' won and wrote the history. There was not "a single consensus view of what Jesus and his life meant and how Jesus/Messiah/God fit together" then or now. I understand a good deal of the details and still, what has been passed down, continues to 'speak to me.' I have no problem with any (in or out of the canon) of the writings or councils unless they cause harm to others. That might be part of how we differ: you have spoken of the harm done; I never really felt harmed and even brought up in a Catholic home, religion, though important, was not the be all and end all for us nor did we go to the bible for guidance or to answer questions. The 'feeling that something is right' is never just a feeling for me. But feeling something is right and that it is valid for all, that it is Truth, seems to be what motivated many, throughout history, including WWII, to defend others against and destroy those who could't or wouldn't see this Truth, such as a Hitler. Our (USA) founding fathers, a bunch of white guys, some who didn't much like each other (ego and politics were evident) dismissed other points of view, presented a canon and future generations believe it resonates; they feel that it is right, valid for all and that they have stumbled on truth. Some of us accept it at face value while others have thought deeply on it, reflected on their present experience and, seemingly for many, the 'truth of our fathers' still resonates in our lives. I too always enjoy the discussions and remain hopeful for christianity and humankind.

They do want to hold onto Christianity, which is fine, but they seem to take stances (generalizing here) and then look for biblical 'proof' rather than approaching the Bible as objectively as possible. For example, Spong has said that Paul was gay and he, Spong, thankfully provides great support for and cherishes the LGBTQ community. But Paul doesn't have to be gay for a Christian to disagree with the Church's historical opposition to that community and its people. Borg, if I remember correctly, paints a very different picture than biblical scholars who point to what seems to be a Jesus who was an Apocalyptic Prophet (not how Borg pictures Jesus). I never considered either man to be biblical scholars. I too like both and they have provided a great service and much is feasible. Speaking of Hell, Ehrman is writing a new book on the After Life and on his blog was speaking of Jesus's understanding of Gehenna: it seems Jesus didn't believe, according to Ehrman's scholarship, in eternal torture but that (my words) bad people simply no longer exist, while the good live on. Now, if this is what the best scholarship indicated Jesus believed - I simply don't agree with Jesus, a man, about this. I don't feel the need to deny this research, simply to say, I think on this Jesus was wrong (god forgive me). My concern is that a Spong or Borg would have the need to 'see' something different in Jesus' belief that would be palatable for modern people (might be wrong ??). Would they accept a Jesus who believed that bad people simply stopped existing? Perhaps?? I am not familiar with Francesca (will check her out) but I like the fact that Ehrman is an agnostic/atheist and tries to be as objective a historian as he is able and I then like to compare his take to others.

Valid in that Jesus, a man, had, along with his fellow Jews, a sense of and understanding of God. So too, it is valid for John - since Jesus is important to him and his community - to elaborate on and give voice to the understanding of the Divine which is based on their particular understanding of Jesus. The simple answer - a more elaborate one is built on Gabriel Moran's book 'The Present Revelation' - is that John reflects a communal understanding of Jesus that is ultimately judged to be of a piece with the Synoptic and Pauline witness. Not simply to me or some others: it has 'spoken' to Christian communities from the end of the 1st C CE and continued to speak to Christian communities to the degree that it was accepted as a correct presentation of the Christ - as opposed to, for example, gnostic gospels. All the gospels are highly theological, so too John. His arrangements of the miracles in a particular order and a set number, while different, still 'reveals' the Christ of God to the Christian community and invites belief. That is the point of the gospels: Good News. Are any of the gospels accurate, miles off or do they simply take the oral tradition(s) and present it as the Good News of Jesus the Christ? Not history, not biography, but theology. I agree that John puts words in the mouth of Jesus as does, for example, Mathew in his 'production' of the Sermon on the Mount and his constant comparison of Jesus as like and even greater than Moses. Seemingly some of the sermon words are historical. It has been awhile since I studied John but I do remember that one great biblical scholar, Paula Fredrekson, believes that John's seemingly allows that Jesus traveled to Jerusalem more than once as is the case in the Synoptics. So not right or wrong; it is a particular presentation of Jesus that, if I remember correctly, is not simply John's but arises from the tradition and 'memory' of his community. Seemingly, John was not on a completely different track as his gospel was accepted alongside the other three. Again, there is personal interpretation in all gospels and his is judged to be, not a giant leap forward but a deep mediation on the Christ, 60+ years after his death. Actually, in many ways, reflecting on Jesus, it could be said that Jesus and the Father are one and the same; the two entities are 'combined' - divinity lives in humanity. Thus, many believe that John and the Synoptics have accurately and correctly interpreted Jesus. 200CE - this is a roughly 100 years, give or take a few either way - not bad? Poetry hurts people? Perhaps if it is taken literally - as is too often the case but it doesn't mean there is not 'truth' in poetry, mythological images, symbols and metaphor. Some gospel facts can be wrong, other information can be mis-taken as historical or literal but completely wrong? For me, this misunderstands that it is primarily theology and the theology of John still rings true: it says something 'true' about Jesus (man) with God. This is John's 'sense of God' and it may or may not speak 'truth' to the reader. For others, not so much - which is fine.

This is a good point and one I had not given a great deal of thought to but I agree that, seemingly, Jesus thought of God as his Father and therefore as other and external. Sounds reasonable for a Jew of that time. I also agree that John in particular took the understanding of God/Jesus to a new level (and wrote some of these insights back into Jesus)l. However, although this has to be taken as poetry, I think it is valid for John and others to continue, building on Jesus, to say something more about the Divine and the Human (with 60 or so years of thinking and living the Way) in light of what they came to believe about the man Jesus. The or some kind of 'combination' of Jesus with God (or vice versa) seems, for many, to resonate as 'true.'

So for me, as indicated, not a dichotomy (either/or) but a paradox: both true and simply trying to comprehend the human 'insights' into Divinity. And, I agree with Joseph that we were never separate (and that language cannot capture Reality) but separate and external are different from ' other' (and there we still have paradox). Wholly other? Hardly. However, the experience seems to also speak of: transcendence or reaching beyond; finitude; and, dependence. Also agree we cannot exist except for God: both as 'substrate' and as 'That' which must be actualized in order to be (fully).

Jack of Spades has made a good point, something that John Macquarie also discusses in his book 'In Search of Deity.' He speaks of seeming opposites, such as transcendent and immanent that have to be seen, as much as is humanly possible, in balance. The paradox is that, for example, God is both transcendent and immanent. If one goes too far in emphasizing transcendence they go to a theistic notion of God that paints Him as totally other, distant, external; if they lean too far to immanence, they go to pantheism. So too, I believe, with your question, Syke, of God and Jesus. Seemingly God is Other in that we are not responsible for 'this (creation)' and that we find ourselves to be transcendent beings, in that we always reach beyond ourselves in order to be our truest selves. Christianity speaks of the God who Calls (Word) and Encourages (Love/Spirit) empowering us to become. If indeed God is Love, then as one embodies Love, they are incarnating God: man needs God/Love in order to be truly Human. What is Other, but never external, must live in man. Is it ever internal? Not sure as internal means it is mine or even that something is my possession, emphasis on mine. I think rather that Love in never completely mine (or internal) but that which must always be chosen (again, again and again): never internal and only in and of me when I live it. My caution is that I have heard too many 'associate' themselves with God, that God is internalize in them but they never really seem to be very Human: it rings false. I get the idea of God/Jesus making their abode in one but perhaps it is more on point to say that we live/abide in God only if we do what God IS (Love), then Love lives or finds a home in us. Never a once and done, it is always before us, always to be done, always to be Lived. Finally, for me, we are called to be as Jesus was: sons and daughters of the Father. It is God/Love that lived in Jesus and that must live in us also for us to be what Jesus was: man/woman expressing Divinity and therefore becoming and being Human. We don't incarnate Jesus - he is a man - rather we are called to incarnate/embody God. We can incarnate the Way of Jesus but that is God's Way. The point, for me, is not to worship Jesus, it is to be Christ. So, as to 'between Him in me and whether an external God exists at all or whether it was just humanities expression of the sense of God within' I think it is man's expression of his experience of the transcendent (beyond or More than us) God that is immanent in and through creation. Is there an external God? I would say No. Is God Other or transcendent? Different question, I think - and a different answer.

Glad to have you here. Feel free to suggest issues that interest you.

Great stuff - keep it coming..........

Try John Hick's "The Metaphor of God Incarnate' and Baum's 'Man Becoming' (start with chapters II) and John Macquarie's 'In Search of Deity.' Plus, as mentioned Fredriksen, the biblical scholar is a great writer and scholar. Ehrman has a website and posts very, very often and answers questions. Also in on Youtube and his site for lectures and debates (he is quirky, nerdy and fearless). I like Spong and Borg but I believe that both have preconceived takes on Jesus and Christianity that influences what they interpret. I have not read Enns.