thormas

12 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Spong outlines how the Gospel of Mark is set up to mark out and walk through the Jewish liturgical year. (I believe this is in his book, 'Jesus for the Non-Religious'). In Jewish synagogues, they read certain scenarios from the Torah to round out the entire year. This is repeated within Jewish Christianity. I think that there might be some echoing of a similar Jewish story into the new Christian one, such as the exodus from Egypt being replaced by the Christ child being brought back from Egypt, or 40 years in the wilderness being replaced by 40 days of Jesus fasting, etc.

I have a feeling that Jewish Christians might have been trying to hide their original Jewish identities, considering what happened with Rome in 70. This might be why their identities and presence isn't seen or felt too much after that time.

I know Spong's theory, I just question whether he is correct on it and I haven't come to a conclusion.

I do agree on what you said about the Exodus and Jesus' return from Egypt - I think Matthew's gospel is brilliant in showing that Jesus is like Moses, Jesus is grater than Moses.

I don't know of any support or agreement with your theory of hidden Jewish identities after 70 CE.

Prior experience is simply a direct and present experience of the past - the only difference is that I don't buy that we have a 'direct' experience of God. 

Any 'luck' was that I was born to good people and experienced enough good people throughout my life who 'gave me God' - through them I was called, challenged,  judged and loved and God was 'bodied' forth in and through them. 

"People can do both"...........on this we simply disagree. It sounds like a supernatural theism which I don't buy. The disciples were reflecting on the execution of their friend and leader, they were feeling the loss, confused and scared. They were also, as is very human, reflecting on the 'good times' and remembering 'everything' about Jesus. They were also searching and reflecting on their own scriptures to help them comprehend all of this.......and eventually, sometime after the execution.........the 'AHA' moment: he is Alive, he is exalted by God, he is Lord! 

________________________________

I am always thinking and always asking - this is a form of prayer for me. Again we don't know one another:  I never buy, completely or immediately, what I read - I think about it, I reflect on it in comparison and contrast to others I have read, I reflect on it based on my experience with others and with what I have previously come to believe - yet remain open to more. Suffice to say, I always ask myself, consider and reconsider what I believe.

I am curious enough that I have no problem or fear in reading, hearing and considering what others (scholars and 'ordinary' people) have said or written. And, I have made the time to read widely on this in order to know and reflect on what others think and believe. Philosophy and theology are what I decided to study in college and grad school and what I decided to teach and thereafter continued to study when I left teaching and entered business. You did make me laugh though since I learned first to not believe everything I heard (or read) from others but to trust what I knew while being open to those others. 

You appear to separate what one learns from others and what one learns from looking to oneself - I don't make such a separation and feel it is an artificial. Both take place in each individual.

On 8/8/2020 at 11:14 PM, Alec Ruth said:

I've begun to embrace a weak God -- a God who existed in the universe that preceded the Big Bang, who could only fashion the conditions of the Big Bang such that there was a frail chance that planets like earth and creatures like humans would emerge in this new universe. The fact that this weak God's creative powers were limited would be why earth is a lone outpost of life in the bleak expanse of space. The weak God is likely no longer alive, and perhaps created our universe in the hope that creatures like humans would emerge to further its desire for reality to grow in harmonious diversity. The Gospels' teachings, by this view, are distinctively powerful expressions of a genuinely godly impulse to see reality thrive on each of its interlocking scales, one of which is the scale of humans, which is the focus of the Gospels.

What do you think of this notion of a weak God?

The idea of a weak God that then dies seems to be deism with a very bad ending for God. However, I think I appreciate the intent which seems to be the emphasis on our "godly impulse .......one of which is the scale of humans..."

While I am neither a deist ora theist, I believe in (a) God who is present and active (which would require further explanation) but is at an epistemological distance, meaning he is 'hidden' and does not overpower us with his presence thus preserving our free choice to discover and choose to enable reality to 'grow in harmonious diversity.'  

14 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

There's no reason why someone who was living in the Kingdom of God, couldn't be standing next to and talking to someone who was living and thinking in the kingdom of Caesar. The first person could be going home to a community where everyone was sharing (both the work and the goods) and everyone was being treated equally, while the second person was going home to a community where there was no or very little sharing of goods and work and no one or not many people were being treated as equal.

Today you could have one person living under the English Crown, talking to a person living under the American Presidency, and another who is in the Kingdom of  Heaven, all living and thinking with different priorities, ideas and values. How close these are to each other and where they might overlap is another question.

I've looked at some intentional communities, how close these each might come to a true kingdom of heaven is another question also.

Just because other kingdoms and governments of different types have marched on through time, doesn't mean that the kingdom of heaven isn't still there and still growing and existing, (though it might not get in the news or be reported in famous histories, it doesn't mean it isn't still there in some form or another).

Paul talked about "don't live in the world" (I take this as meaning don't live in worldly ideas and priorities), at the same time he said Christians could not avoid or not encounter the "world" entirely. I guess the thing was just not to get sucked or drawn into worldly thinking and behaviors.

Apologies, my response was to this part of your post

Again, I agree but I simply don't see that in Jesus' expectation and preaching. Unless we're talking about a realized eschatology found in the gorpels (40 to 70 years after the execution of Jesus) Jesus seems to be announcing a coming/ future eschatology and arrival of the Kingdom that will come whether people are repentant to not, whether they are ready or not.

I accept a 'partial' realized eschatology or men and women 'living the Kingdom' now in a 'finite' human way...........I simply question that was Jesus' understanding. And to me this is simply a point of interest or curiosity: the reality is the Kingdom didn't come as announced, the insight changed and we, i.e. many of us, believe in a present, finite living of the Kingdom.

I am not looking to the NT to confirm what I believe (that ended decades ago), I am simply doing an analysis of what the Bible portrays as the historical Jesus' understanding. 

4 hours ago, Pipiripi said:

 

ruh-roh

48 minutes ago, Burl said:

Some guys remain guys even while at prayer 😉

Agreed!

39 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Spong in writing about the gospels, says that they were written as liturgy, in and for the Greek speaking Jewish synagogues living outside of Judea. They may well have been calling their buildings and gatherings churches instead of synagogues, (considering Rome was pos. out to get the Jews after 70)  but according to Spong they were mostly if not all Jewish converts to Christ.   

Maybe the truth is somewhere in between, I don't know. There were certainly Gentile converts by the time the gospels were written. Did they gather in the same places that the Jewish converts did or mix with them regularly and freely? Perhaps the answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no, depending on where they lived and on the leaning and temperament of the different communities .

Spong's theory, based if I remember correctly on Michael Goulder, is not widely accepted (again if I remember correctly). And Spong seems to be in disagreement with Ehrman: "by the second half of the first century (the time all gospels were written) the church was probably made up predominantly of pagan converts." 

An interesting question for me is did some of what we find in the gospels date from an earlier oral or written traditions that were for Jewish converts and written as liturgy?

According to a NT and early Christian historian (Ehrman), the Gentiles dominated while the Jewish Christians were on the margins. Some of the answers to your questions might be found in further exploration of some of the experts. If I find anything I'll let you know.

1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

I don't really see the "done in a flash" thing as being a real part of reality. Even some of the apostles didn't seem to 'get it' well into Christ's ministry. Paul in his letters talks about people going through a transition and needing time to change and essentially put on a new way of thinking and believing. Though Paul is writing to Gentiles, there's no reason to believe that Jewish people didn't need some time to change and adjust also.

I don't either but I was talking and wondering about what Jesus expected. Our understanding might be that even Jews might need time to change but it appears that Jesus said simply "Repent & Prepare' because ready or not, prepared or not, God will establish his Kingdom and if you are not prepared NOW, you miss out.

Again, I agree but I simply don't see that in Jesus' expectation and preaching. Unless we're talking about a realized eschatology found in the gorpels (40 to 70 years after the execution of Jesus) Jesus seems to be announcing a coming/ future eschatology and arrival of the Kingdom that will come whether people are repentant to not, whether they are ready or not.

I accept a 'partial' realized eschatology or men and women 'living the Kingdom' now in a 'finite' human way...........I simply question that was Jesus' understanding. And to me this is simply a point of interest or curiosity: the reality is the Kingdom didn't come as announced, the insight changed and we, i.e. many of us, believe in a present, finite living of the Kingdom.

I am not looking to the NT to confirm what I believe (that ended decades ago), I am simply doing an analysis of what the Bible portrays as the historical Jesus' understanding. 

16 hours ago, PaulS said:

What we have 18 and 50 years after Jesus, is exactly that - 18 & 50 years AFTER Jesus.  Even Paul in the Galatians acknowledges that some of that church had abandoned those beliefs for others.  That's just one example of there being 'other' beliefs about Jesus.  We know that various other beliefs developed in early Christianity with their being several different 'groups' among the meager number of Christians in the earliest of days.  That Paul's beliefs are the dominant ones laid out in the NT just means that they are the dominant views that won the day.  So for Hurtado or any other scholar to be certain, or even reasonably certain, that these views accurately capture those of Jesus, is simply something they cannot demonstrate.  I think Erhman has the integrity (or non-bias) and understanding to say that, I don't know enough about Hurtado.

The point was that Paul is not writing 50 years after the execution of Jesus but 18 years and Hurtado is showing that even then, there is, in the letters, an understanding that Paul is not offering something new but takes it for granted that these communities already know what he is talking about - thus going back earlier than 18 years. Hurtado, Ehrman and others date the execution to circa 30 CE and show Saul persecuting the Jesus followers with 1-2 years after that with his conversion circa 33 CE. Paul knew why he was persecuting them (and it pre-dates him) and it is this very 'faith' that he accepts and begins to preach. What the Christians believed about Jesus, what they were saying about Jesus, how they included him in their worship to God was known already in the first couple of years after the death of Jesus and is found in Paul.

If I remember correctly the issue in Galatians was once again the question of the Gentiles and 'becoming Jews.' Does this mean there were other beliefs, sure but Peter and James also had issue with this until it was resolved in Paul's favor. I'm not saying that there were not other beliefs just that the one in Galatians was held also by the community headed by his disciples.

Ehrman writes on his blog "That would mean that he (Paul) must have been persecuting the Christians by around 32 CE, just two years after Jesus died.   And that means that he knew about Christians, and their claims about Jesus, already at that extremely early point.  We don’t have to wait for Mark in 70 CE for evidence that Christians were talking about Jesus.  We have clear and certain evidence they were doing so in the early 30s.  What they were saying about Jesus was highly offensive to Paul.  And so he persecuted them." This 'non-bias' view is repeated in Hurtado.

Paul accepted in conversion the very thing he found so offensive about Jesus. i.e. he already knew what the 'Christians' were saying/believing about Jesus. 

I don't believe I said that Hurtado (Ehrman or other scholars) saiid he was certain - just that he was making an argument based on Paul and his study of early Christian Christology and devotional practices. It is a bit detailed to go into it more but much is there on his blog. Hurtado is specifically discussing what pre-dated Paul, what he 'learned and received' rather than invented. 

I see Ehrman saying much the same thing as Hurtado regarding Paul. As always I will explore it more and if you see something specific that counters what I'm saying about Hurtado, let me know.

16 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think the difference between Jesus & Jewish expectations versus Paul's 'good news' for the gentiles, is that the former expected God to come in his glory to overthrow the powerbase - these people weren't being 'invited' so to speak.  Sure they may end up in the Kingdom once defeated & they've capitulated, but I don't think it was an invitation to them as Paul made the message to be.

So I see it more as a post-Jesus development rather than in sync with Jesus, as demonstrated by Jesus' actions, or lack of, when it came to ministering to gentiles.

I didn't say the synoptics were written for the Jews, or that there message is only for Jews (I actually think they have gentile influences), but rather they largely represent a Jesus was focused on a message for the Jews and was not anywhere near as inclusionary as Paul.  They can't do otherwise because that's who Jesus was and what he did.  They added a few little bits to soften it for the non-Jews in their audience and probably because that was the direction Christianity was taking thanks largely to Paul.  I just don't think it was what Jesus had in mind, as seems to be demonstrated in the synoptics, if you ask me.

It seems that they were two 'moments' in the same reality that was God's establishment of his Kingdom. Jesus and Paul were apocalyptic Jews from the same period in Jewish history and their beliefs in God's Kingdom according to Jewish expectations seems to be the same: God establishes the Kingdom, the old 'power base' is no more.........and all nations would come to worship the God of the Jews. It seems 'evident' that Jesus started with, focused on the Jews while Paul's Gentile mission (along with others) fulfilled what was part of the apocalyptic Jewish expectation. 

In acknowledging the priority of Jesus' mission or ministry to the Jews, it doesn't follow that Jesus did not understand or agree with his tradition about the full reach and intention of that Kingdom for all (Isiah). It seems Paul is completely in sync with Jewish expectations and the ministry of Jesus and it appears this is established by the early communities outreach to the Gentiles. Any disagreement int the communities was not whether or not to include the Gentiles but how to include them (conversion to Judaism or, for Paul, simply faith in Christ) - and it was decided in Paul's favor at the Council of Jerusalem. 

Apologies if I misunderstood your take on the synoptics: it simply seems there was more than Gentile influences - they were written for the Gentiles. If you're saying they were written to present the Gentiles with an understanding of Jesus' message to the Jews (and of course to flesh out who this Jesus was), I get that. However the idea of 'adding a few of little bits to soften it for non-Jews' seems to be all you as opposed to the gospels. If Ehrman or other scholars agree with this view, I would be interested (I would have to check also).

If Paul's writings are dated 50-60 CE and Matthew was circa 80-85 CE (close to a quarter century after Paul's death), the Jesus communities were by then mostly Gentile - so why the need to soften? Ehrman writes on his blog that. " ..............by the second half of the first century the church was probably made up predominantly of pagan converts."

Did Paul ever offer soft bits to the Gentiles to 'persuade' them?

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

The coming of Christ is present tense and in time different for each of us.

I agree with this as 'our' realized eschatology and the beginning of living of the Kingdom or God in the individual.

2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I tend to think of "the end of times" or the in breaking of the Kingdom of Heaven as something that started with Jesus. It's the end of a kind of worldliness and worldly thinking or a worldly reality that is ending and new reality and way of looking at the world that was starting. It's not "the end of the world" but an end of a kind or worldly thinking and reality that is/was ending.

This may happen to different individuals and or communities at different times in history and or in our own lives.

People have been saying "it's the end of the world" and in our generation, for like forever. (I think that someone else has already mentioned this on this thread). Perhaps they are looking for the wrong sort of events to be happening.

Jesus is quoted as saying, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you", "That the Kingdom of Heaven comes in a way that cannot be seen", and that, "The Kingdom of Heaven is scattered among you and people do not see it". This is a far different type of transformation, than the end of the world happening one day, and a whole entire new world arriving the next.

I would agree with the first sentence, especially from our perspective. However Jesus still announced 'a soon to come' establishment of the Kingdom by God. Moreover, I'm not sure God's Kingdom (in the understanding of Jesus and the Jews) was a 'new way of looking at the world that was starting' because when God established the Kingdom, there would no longer be a realty other than his Kingdom (no more other kingdoms or kings) and in the very establishment it wasn't starting, rather it was already accomplished, it was already done.

I'm curious now because it seems like the expected Kingdom, preached by Jesus, would be done in a flash yet there seems also to be the acknowledgement that the Gentile nations would worship the true God.........so was all accomplished instantly by God or was there a delay until the Gentiles worshipped him, and if there was a delay, did that limit God's power and ability to establish his Kingdom?

Regardless, when the Kingdom was not established and time (and other kingdoms) marched on, there was a rethinking about a 'realized eschatology' that had or could begin with faith in Jesus (that began with Jesus). And this would definitely require an ending and a new beginning. I think this part is perfectly valid from our perspective and it is what happened in the early communities.

Allison point out that the 'end of days' (God's Kingdom) like the beginning of days (Genesis) is mythological language (not to be taken literally) for us, however he admits that it seems that Jesus and his peers took it literally.

13 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

Have you ever had a piece of intuition or insight that rouse up in you that you felt was or might be from God? Not something overwhelming or over powering but something that you felt was truly inspiring. Maybe it had to do with a question you'd been asking yourself for a long time or it had to do with something you'd been thinking about for a while. 

I think this sort of thing can happen to anyone, though we might have to tune into it and be open to it. It certainly did happen to the earliest Christians. It seems to be that these are the sort of things they were talking about when they met in their churches/gatherings, they didn't have a New Testament, but they were gathering and talking about something. 

Sorry, I still see intuition or insight 'about something' that has already been presented or experienced before and one has an intuition about it or develops an insight into it. I don't identify either as God;  I simply don't think God works this way. If I have a question it is based in my experience and I am reading, discussing or reflecting on it and then comes the 'Aha" moment. As you have even said, the early Christians were "gathering and talking about something" they experience or were reflecting on and they they got it. A very human thing to do. 

3 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think we've been down this path before in another thread.  It doesn't seem so solid to me, but each to their own. I just don't think there is enough evidence available to anybody to determine what the state of early Christianity was (in say the first 50 years after Jesus).  We can speculate by all means, but I don't find much of what people say we 'know' as compelling.  To me, anyway.

I get that all are entitled to their opinion but I would be curious where and why you find Hurtado as not solid. Fifty years after Jesus would bring us to 80 CE and we already have Paul's letters beginning 18 years after Jesus and his encounter with the early Christians dating to within the first 1- 2 years after the execution of Jesus. It certainly seems that the scholars have something to go on and Hurtado is not alone in this. In addition, the chronology for Paul seems to be accepted among scholars. Anyway......that could demand a lot of time, so we will leave it here..

I should add that if I used the word 'know' that was not intended as that word is too definitive and belongs to science rather than biblical scholarship.

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think the synoptics are pointing to a Jesus that was like that for the Jews, largely because his message was only for the Jews to get ready for the Kingdom.  I just don't think his message was for all.  I think Paul expanded that message for his own reasons, or the reasons of others that he co-opted, but I think it was different to Jesus' intention.  So I mean to say that Paul was the one saying that Jesus' message (aka the good news) was for all and not just the Jews, in difference to what I think the synoptic (largely) show of Jesus' actions.

I think you judge Paul too harshly as his reasons were in line with the Jewish expectation that all nations would turn to the true God. Also, there were other 'missionaries' also preaching to the Gentiles: Paul addresses Gentiles in a Roman community which he did not establish.  As for the Synoptics, even Ehrman, on his blog, writes, "The vast majority of the New Testament books – including that “most Jewish” of our Gospels, Matthew – appear to be directed largely if not exclusively to gentile audiences, and most may well have been written by gentile authors." Ehrman writes that the Jewish 'Christians' were always at the margins of the movement.

So the Synoptics were not written for Jews nor is there message only for Jews.........if at all. 

11 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I keep thinking that you have been very lucky in that God has expressed Emself to you through the words and actions of so many people.

I can't help but feel that God would (or even does) also express Emself to you directly, through your own ideas, thoughts and insights. From the things you write I find it a little hard to believe that this hasn't already happened, and maybe you just don't see it, cause you've had a lot of good things given to you.

---------------------------

I agree that the best words are those that are spoken in the spirit of love.

 We differ on how we conceive and speak of God's interaction with man. I simply think that God is always 'incarnating:'  in and through humanity in order to 'express himSelf' to us. I think any 'direct' expression would overwhelm out freedom to respond to him and I think that even the OT speaks of the Godhead (God in himself who is beyond all comprehension) always working through Word and Spirit to create, to call his people, to challenge and judge them (his prophets) and, of course, most intimately expressing himself 'indirectly' in the man Jesus so as not to overwhelm but to 'call' and allow our free response.

So from my perspective, God has been constantly expressing himSelf to me throughout my life - simply not in the way you conceive such expression.

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

 It seems Paul (and his associate, Luke) is saying these things about Jesus because it fits Paul's understanding of Jesus - the Jesus who he never even met.

Does Paul talk about the centurion and Jesus or was it the Synoptics?

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

I think it is because of the Pauline influence on early Christianity that Jesus became this all-loving, all-encompassing figure that really wanted everybody to live happily ever after in the Kingdom of God.  I think this is not what is presented about Jesus in the synoptic gospels.  I think his message was only focused on the Jews repenting, forgiving, loving etc.  Their God was to rule the world and they had a special place in it.

But Paul was not that interested in Jesus - providing no details about the (earthly) man so how could an "all-loving, all-encompassing (Jesus) figure that really wanted everybody to live happily ever after in the Kingdom of God" come from Paul? Isn't there more of a loving Jesus in the Synoptics than in Paul? 

Not sure what you mean by 'evidence' but Hurtado makes a solid case. Interestingly your estimate matches Hurtado's conjecture based on his in-depth study. 

Perhaps it makes more sense to say that the Synoptics differ from Paul since Paul's epistles came first. I do agree that Paul has a 'different' understanding about 'who the Kingdom was for' but, rather than a difference, it seems more of an expansion and is still a piece with the Jewish understanding of all nations recognizing the God of Israel and with the imminent expectation of the return of Jesus, Paul reached out to those nations, the Gentiles. 

Hurtado's point, in part, is that Paul's beliefs are in sync with the beliefs of the earliest communities (more than I can explain in a post but his blog is worth a read if interested) and his writings begin 18 years after the execution of Jesus - as compared to the estimated dates of the Synoptics. In addition. Paul writes in a way that the Christology in his letters is already 'understood' - he is not introducing it for the first time and Hurtado presents it as the same Christology that in in place in the earliest communities and for which, as you also estimated, Paul prosecuted them.

I have no problem recognizing Paul preaching 'the Christ' as opposed to Jesus preaching the Kingdom or Paul's out reach to the Gentiles as opposed to Jesus' focus on the Jews. However, ideas like the understanding of the meaning of the death of Jesus, his exaltation by God and a Christology and devotional practices that recognize Jesus as Lord, Messiah, son of God are pretty much identical to the Jerusalem based community of Peter and James.  

Also not denying other views but the Gal. letter was about the whole idea of Gentiles having to become Jews, a disagreement Paul had with the community of James and Peter? 

11 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I'd have to go over the gospels to figure out how many are mentioned. In Luke's version of the Sermon on the Mount there seems to be quite a good many. Everyone that the 'woman at the well' talked to and who Jesus stayed with and preached to for two days, became believers, How many they were, again the bible doesn't say.

I know that Paul opened more doors for the Gentiles. From my perspective however the door was already opened in the Gospels, and by Jesus himself.

I know that John 1 is a latter development, but I still believe it. I also believe he was a person and a human being like all of us too. Exactly how this all happened and comes together, I don't know. I sometimes wonder if in some way we were all conceived of and created before physical creation began, though of course Jesus was first and the one who brings us into our true selves. 

I can't say I know how both conceptions of Jesus can be true, but I think that they both are true. Maybe it's something like God conceived of Jesus before the beginning of the universe and then wanted everything to be manifested through physical creation so E created the more physical universe and designated a time when Jesus would come into it also. A time perhaps when we people were more ready to see and experience who he was and who we are supposed to be and what direction we are supposed to be going in.

I understand what you're saying but for me or to my ears, this is a more theistic approach that I no longer accept. 

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

I forgot to address your point about the great commission.  Where this is mentioned in the NT are books that have Pauline or gentile influences - Luke, Acts, John, Matthew etc were either written by Paul, his associate Luke, or others where by the time of their writing, gentiles were a solid presence in Christianity.  I don't think this commission can necessarily be attributed to Jesus, in fact, I think it shouldn't be.

The later addition to Mark of the great commission would seem to indicate that it was not originally from Jesus but a development after his death.

I tend to agree on this but the so called great commission or the inclusion of the Gentiles of all nations was an inevitable part of the Kingdom's establishment (Isiah). 

2 hours ago, Pipiripi said:

Thank you, but for me, I cannot stop giving you Jesus Paul. I'm not like Jerry. I am like Jesus of NAZARETH, the Son of the LIVING GOD.  Everybody say!! AMEN.

How about we just say, "ruh-roh."

11 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I know people who think things like; the dinosaurs were so awful and creating so much negativity that it caused a meteorite to smash into the earth. Or that it's human's negative energy that causes things like tornados and floods and earthquakes and hurricanes and tidal waves. Perhaps human negative energy can cause things like cancer too. Myself, I don't know about all this stuff, but I certainly don't believe that God causes any of it. Like I say I don't know, but it certainly is better than blaming God for these types of things.

I get that one with negative energy can ruin a gathering of friends, impact a family or a relationship but I don't buy that the dinosaurs 'created negative energy' or caused their own destruction by a meteorite. They were mere animals, a bit bigger than my dogs, and mostly preoccupied with eating. I don't think animals are capable of negativity - at least as humans understand it or are.

And, I think the idea of human negative energy creating tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, etc, is absurd. Too many times the most innocent people or countries with immense problems are greatly harmed by nature while what some might consider more advanced countries and 'dens of inequity' remain untouched. And the idea of cancer being caused by negative energy is simply obscene. I have been in cancer wards, seen others so sick it would cause one to weep, people undergoing years of having toxic medicines pumped into their veins - yet so full of light and life it is both humbling and revelatory.

I don't blame God but I certainly don't blame man or animals for natural disasters or disease.

The point remains though that if God is 'involved in nature and natural events' then one could blame God for human suffering caused by those events.

7 minutes ago, Pipiripi said:

God is the source of life, God doesn't need to intervene in His creation. It is better to ask God about His creation. 

What was salvation in Christ? .........an intervention to overcome sin which had a devastating impact on creation.

30 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

But there were other people too, who were not Jewish, who were open to and received Jesus's words and had faith in him. How and why they were ready for this and open to it, is another question.

The question is were there and how many - there seems to be no definitive answer. Whereas with Paul and other missionaries, the flood gates opened for the Gentiles.

32 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

God creating and conceiving Jesus from the beginning as it is stated in John 1. In the beginning there was the Word/Logos,... etc.

I take this as a later (circa 100 CE) development from the writer/community of John. The earliest understanding of Jesus was that he was a human being 'exalted' by God to be Lord and Son. If Jesus was not merely from the beginning but was the means by which creation came to be, how could the historical man be 'like us?' 

50 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I guess I should have been clearer; science is the study of God's creation which in some ways is the study of God, as God is reflected in Es creation.

I think that God can be involved in natural processes, exactly how this happens and how it works I don't know. Of course the evolution into eternity involves God. As far as I'm concerned it can't be done without God. Perhaps it is conscious evolution, and choosing to evolve into eternity and into Christ.

I don't think anyone of us gets to define what Progressive Christianity is, though Spong talks about evolution and how we are still evolving.

Jesus and his early followers did suffer, but they are beyond that negativity now. They suffered so we do not have to. Very few people today have to suffer the same hardships and pain that they did because of their faith.

PC is rather fluid (and perhaps beyond a final definition) but my statement was about PCs defining science as the study of God - I just don't think that is done. I get though that Spong speaks of evolving into Christ. I also get your further explanation of science - Creation - God, however, as you know, a non-believer could look at science and creation and never see God or the reflection of God in creation.

I don't think God is involved in natural processes, on this I am a  bit of a 'deist' or a true panentheist: God is the source and sustainer of all, all is of/in God, but it appears that natural laws and principles are evident in creation and creation carries on governed by those laws - like gravity. If God was involved in natural processes it seems logical that he would then be involved in the natural processes of hurricanes, earthquakes, cancers, etc..............and then one could blame God for human suffering and death. Having said all that, I do believe that God is 'present and active' in the ordinary, everyday moments of human life (not sure about the rest of creation given the natural laws). 

I agree that 'human evolution into eternity' can't be done without God. I prefer the term divinazation of the human: man/woman doing what God IS (Love) and thus 'becoming/being' divine. 

Suffering is suffering and we do still suffer in many different ways. My point is that being 'in God' does not allow one to escape human limitation and fragility (in this life).