thormas

I don't really know how we would go about getting this information or how reliable polls are or would be (not sure people would answer or answer truthfully). I am originally from the northeast and now in the south but it is far from the traditional south: I don't know many people who hold to belief in a virgin birth - or even talk about it. This might go to the cafeteria Catholic/Christian phenomena I mentioned earlier. People go to church and/or consider themselves Christians but 'they' decide what is important. I don't think this one is high on the list or even thought about except when we get near to 12/25. Resurrection is different: I think people have different takes on it but either believe it outright or believe that 'something' happened. I take it by PC you mean progressive christians and all are entitled to their opinions. I guess one can call himself a Christian but if he denies that 'something happened' then it becomes an interesting discussion. I guess I differ with you in that while I too think it is important how we interpret and reconcile it with our experience, I would (still) like to know, where possible, what was theological creativity and what seemingly traces back to the historical Jesus. Concerning, for example, heaven, hell and eternal damnation, I think the interpretation and reconciling Church beliefs with lived experience is already taking place: in spite of what comes from their religious leaders, people don't think/believe that the nice guy down the block, the charming couple next door, your kid's friend or your work partner are going to hell because they are not Christian.

It's called humor Rom, humor. A bit of light banter in the midst of some more serious sharing.

Sorry Paul, we heard it from the Pope and he is infallible :-}

If God is Love how could any journey be independent of others? To dive into humanity is to dive into divinity.

Paul, Having been of the Pope cult, it is so odd to hear the view of other Christians concerning Catholics - especially since we always though we were right, after all we were just in line with the first 'pope,' Peter. And, of course, we thought God liked us better :-} The saving grace is we are also exercise a good measure of independence, after all we are 'cafeteria' Catholics: we pick and choose what we want to follow yet still, in our view, remain good Catholics.

I like the comments by Jen and Burl. I had not known Abelard's thought but I like it and will have to read it: the idea that bread and wine are transformed by man into something more.

Hi Joseph, welcome. Sometimes when I'm back in NYC, I stop in to one of the great New York churches (of course the name escapes me right now) and attend their 'high mass.' The music, the ceremony, the 'occasion' - all bring me back to Catholic masses when I was a kid and, in themselves, they are beautiful. However, we always leave at the sermon because that is when they seem to go back to an understanding that I grew out of or for which I found more meaningful explanations years ago. Again, welcome.

If I remember correctly Paul and Mark go with the atonement understanding for the meaning of the death of Jesus, while Matthew, Luke and John give other reasons - so in a sense, one might have a choice as to the meaning when they partake of the Eucharist and still be biblically based. Like Steve, as a Catholic, I never thought of atonement or any other explanation when receiving. Catholics believe it is the Real body and blood but there is also an inherent understanding of symbolism in sacramental theology. Transubstantiation was the original explanation of what was happening: literally the accidents remain but the 'underlying' substance is changed. Always a bit of a brain twister. There was a new understanding in Catholicism introduced by a priest theologian years ago (I learned in when I was getting my Masters in a Catholic seminary as a lay person). It was later rejected by the Catholic Church but is similar to the Anglican (Episcopal) understanding. Always interesting how something can be in and then out of favor! I still think the author was on target: much better explanation that resonates with modern experience.

Paul, Thanks for the comments. It seems the Catholic experience was very different from some other Christian expressions: in Catholicism we had the Bible, so we had the Word but we were also 'people' of the sacraments. I'm not sure how to judge what is the 'norm' as I was working off your numbers. I just don't see a mentality that the other guys will burn - even living in the bible belt for the past 20+ years. As for Jesus, I don't see the evidence as slim especially when one states the obvious (this would be street level evidence as opposed to a more sophisticated approach): that between almost immediately and a couple years (after the 'resurrection experience") a movement began in 'his' name, people suffered incredible hardship and many died, including some guys that knew the guy that might not have existed. Seems above and beyond to suffer and die for a guy that never existed and you would know he didn't exist because you were there. Then again, not sure, off the top of my head, about evidence for Socrates and never have researched the Buddha. Anyway...... That is the point about resurrection, there is no hard evidence because, if 'something' happened from Jesus' side, so to speak, it was outside history (which is between birth and death). What occurred, in history, occurred in the lives of the followers who said they had an 'experience.' Plus, it is not known whether the 'experience' was on the 3rd day of days. week, months later. There was no one back on the job, the 'reports' were of 'appearances - described as drastically different than ordinary existence. What you describe is a resuscitation not resurrection. Only the former is a historical event. You said: "......that it is also historical that people reacted and reported such an event..." Exactly, we can prove that they reported an event or experience, we can't prove what it was they experienced, saw, imagined or whatever. This is another one were we can go on and on........ I guess I disagree with a definitive statement that "we really don't know the Jesus of the NT." I have a higher level of confidence in the expertise and life long efforts of some biblical scholars and historians: there are assumptions but some assumptions are more reliable or have a firmer basis than others. However, in the end, the NT is not about the man, but about (in Christian belief) the 'Lord, the Resurrected One'' who can be known and impact one's life. Never any problem if someone disagrees as long as it is thoughtful disagreement. And your's has been - thanks.

This part, Paul, was never my experience and I'm sorry it was yours and too many others: "there was harm done to me and many others when indoctrinating young children with this message and I hate that such continues on in the world today. Even if such people are well intended promoting their misguided beliefs, the harm is being done. I've unraveled that mess for me as an adult, but I know many haven't and a cursory search will show us how many people commit suicide because of this teaching. That's why I wish Christianity by and large was taken much more lightly. I think the world would be a better place." One of my best friends was raise by his Polish grandmother and aunt and he got the 'old time Catholic version of Christianity' and it really screwed him up. They didn't know any better, they did their best, they did what they thought was right but the impact on him is still evident in his 60s. I am not whitewashing the sins of Christianity or some Christians, I am merely saying that great strides have been and are being made - now if only the new found knowledge and wisdom can be given to the everyday Christians, the we have something. My reaction is, never having been one of those (and never really knowing any of those kinds of) Christians and having studied and still studying the great insights of how things should be understood, I react to the idea that the 'bulk of Christians"- the bulk of us - are like this. Three quick points: 1. There has been a 'softening' and much more not only because we have "developed and realized the lack of compassion that would have to exist for such an abomination to be part of the plan from an all-loving God" but because we also know more about the bible now than those living in the previous 1500 or so years. 2. As for history and the existence of the man Jesus, it is not about proof beyond a reasonable doubt but the weight of historical evidence - one way or the other. If someone believed that Custer and his men all died together on top of the same hill in a tight circle, that's there opinion - however, the evidence does not lean to that conclusion. So too, the weight of evidence leans toward the existence of the man Jesus: as you say, "at best I would say that on the balance of probabilities a person named Jesus, who stirred some passion amongst people 2000 years ago in rural Palestine, is likely." What people believe or don't believe about this man is a completely different matter and we soon get to belief statements. 3. Regarding the resurrection: history happens when we are part of it, walking and talking and living and death is also an historical event. However, 'after death' technically (for lack of a better word right now) is not a historical event, it is not something that historians can make a judgment on. So too, if resurrection is something that supposedly happened after death - as such, it is not an 'event of history.' What is historical is the 'reaction and reporting of Resurrection and the movement called Christianity that occurred in history. Given all this, I know that many Christians classify resurrection as a historical event - but this is not accurate and not what a historian, one who examines historical events, would say. Many Christians do believe in a 'physical' resurrection however it too often comes off as a resuscitation which is different. The gospel stories, as they stretch human language to try to capture whatever their experience was, don't describe it as only physical (and this to try to show it was real), they also describe the Resurrected Jesus as appearing when doors are closed, disappearing, not being recognized by friends, rising in the air (the heavens) - not things a mere physical resuscitated body can do.

I'm a Christian and that seems to be 'old time religion.' For many it is more, much more nuanced. Even with the recitation of our creeds, as a kid in the 50s and 60s, we understood good people came in all stripes. I can't remember the particulars but I believe even Vatican II in the 60s addressed this. For many Christians, even if this 'belief' is still part of the official expression of their faith (and is it?) - many of them have friends who are not Christian: Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc. and I know - if we asked, "are your friends good people?" and "can they 'know God' and share life with God, even if they're not Christians?" - many/most/all would give a resounding yes. Many times our experience or insights occur before creeds and authorities catch up. There is a stark difference between fundamentalist and biblical literalists - and more moderate, or as this website acknowledges, progressive Christians. So, opinion aside, I would need facts and figures to support the statement that it is "a line of thought not only reserved for wingnuts, but by and large the bulk of the population of Christianity." Too sweeping a statement for any faith. Not sure what we don't agree on regarding the existence of Jesus, especially since you go on to say that "there are parts of it (Christianity) that do link to Jesus himself." So they link to Jesus, so Jesus existed?? ​Christianity would, of course, have to go beyond the historical Jesus, because it is born of the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus (which, by definition, could not be a historical event). And of course people won't burn - so we agree that your family is wrong. As a matter of fact, one of the Fathers of the Church (circa 3rd C CE, I think) spoke as if all would be saved. How's that for a new take on Christianity? And, btw, I think he is spot on.

Tariki, This guy, who is missing a few wingnuts (thanks Burl) and indeed a fundamentalist, is easy (and necessary) for Christians to dismiss. However, one can dismiss a literal take on Genesis/Creation and still believe, as one theologian put it, that 'Being/God' although prior or beyond (I know temporal/spatial language) to time and space, creates and acts in time and space as the 'occasion' where humanity encounters Divinity. I will have to get the reference, I think I know who it is but want to be sure. Judaism believes the same, as I guess does Islam (same God) and each has their fundamentalists and progressives. As for other religions and philosophies, don't know. Unique in this insight? No! Unique as understanding the Way? No! Unique in and of itself? Yes - as are the other ways.

Seems we are doing both: a source of metaphors is only useful if we interpret and allow them to have value in our present. This way, the ancient words have a real Presence, an influence on now.

I disagree that there is minuscule /no evidence to prove Jesus existence or even if he did exist (not sure what the different is for you). There is not enough time or space to review but there is 'evidence' in the research of critical scholars. Whereas reading the works of those who consider Jesus a myth does not hold its argument. However, as in all things, all are entitled to their opinions. It is certainly valid to say that "much has been lost, changed, mistranslated, interfered with and discarded......." And the interest, education and effort of scholars is to delve into that and see what might be there. As an example I have just discovered one scholar who has been around for decades. Paula Fredriksen, 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews' and it is fascinating. Another is Dale Allison, another Luke Timothy Johnson - but, again, this kind of reading (like certain other kinds) is not the interest of all and it does demand time and focus. Be that as it may................... However, as one scholar said, Christianity is not faith in the historical Jesus (though this statement assumes his existence), it is faith in the Resurrected Christ and his continuing 'presence.' But that is a whole other thread. As for Christians, I guess the followers of many/all religions and philosop[phies are responsible for causing or (passively) allowing harm to others. I know Buddhism was split in Japan, some supporting the militaristic path, others opposing it. At least on this site, no one is telling anyone what they have to do- just expressing positions, sometimes giving support for those positions, other times just stating and moving forward. On this subject, the weight of evidence leans toward the fact of Jesus' existence.

I think the vast majority of critical scholars accept that the man Jesus of Nazareth existed - that one is closed for me as I have seen nothing to refute the NT, outside sources and the movement in his name after his death. As for the NT, I accept that there are 'kernels' of fact or history that one can and have been lifted out, but I do not believe the gospels are history or biography as commonly understood - or at all. I also think it is accepted that, for example Mark, was writing about Jesus before his audience around 30 CE and was also writing to his audience in 70 CE. The interesting thing for some of us is to try to 'see' what's what. And the beat goes on. However it is also obvious that Christian faith is not tied to the 'the search for the historical Jesus' but rather to the continued 'presence of the Christ of faith.' Not for all but for many.

There are obvious 'inclusions' from a later Christian writer but enough to suggest, perhaps establish the existence of the man. Others, will have to check, it's been a while.

Ehrman must mentions them in his book, for example Josephus. Actually more a contemporary of Mark and, I guess, Paul, having fought in the Jewish Wars before his capture.

OK, didn't know it was opinion. For the fishermen and followers of Jesus, I always 'assumed' they were lower class and especially when they happen upon a rich man or tell a story of one, it sees a big deal. Plus, the followers of Jesus seem to have a boat or two among them, not a dynasty. Plus, we never hear of them being rich, being moneyed. Who knows. As for weddings, don't you know stories or have had the experience of someone of a completely different 'station in life' being at a wedding of someone of a higher class? Or, he might have already been known and invited??

Hey, I though this was about Jesus in the NT. Is this leading to Jesus taking a side trip to the land of Buddha? :-)

Burl, there were also small ranchers in the American West and they were not rich in any sense of the word. Not all suppliers of cattle were barons, not all suppliers of protein in Galilee (although I do admire the phrase for fish along with capital equipment) were fish barons of the Galilee. Some probably had one boat or a shared boat, nets and friends - unless we can account for all the fishers of fish, it is a guess. Fun to noodle but ultimately without an answer. As for James and John, were the servants theirs or their father's? There is a difference. And is there collaboration from other sources in the NT (probably can't count Matthew and Luke -although I haven't checked - because they took most of Mark and added) so this would mean John, Paul etc.? Are their others sources that would collaborate that fishing was a wealthy enterprise and there were 'fish barons' in Galilee? I simply had never heard this presentation before. I allow that the trip to Egypt is not historical but I do get that a tekton, as a craftsman - unless they were just hired help - might be paid more than the hired laborer. Do we know which Jesus was? I don't however, know how to put these ancient occupations into classes: poor, middle or wealthy. Source?

What is your source for fishermen being wealthy, and tekton being middle class? Just curious? Not sure about the humor but will look again. Didn't read like humor. It is in the tradition that Jesus healed but Jen meant an actual (wealthy) physician or else I suspect she would have made that point.

I agree Burl, just something to noodle on. But it was tied to Jen's contention that Jesus was a wealthy physician and thus educated and literate. Thoughts on that?

Rom, what do you mean by contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus?

I had written more but lost it. Jesus must have been fluent in Aramaic (his language), probably Hebrew (a cousin of Aramaic and the language of Scripture), and, it could be argued he would have had to know Greek (proficient rather than fluent?) as it was the language of the empire and as a worker with his hands needed it as a working citizen of the empire. As for Latin, the language of the law and the military, perhaps not but one author did bring up this might be the language necessary to speak to Pilate (not Greek?). So, multilingual but literal (reading and writing)? Perhaps, given Burl's and other articles on the value of education: at least able to read the one 'book:' the Scriptures?? Able to read Aramaic - perhaps as it is close to Hebrew and necessary for some work?? Greek, work related? Latin, doubtful. But these last three are pure guesses. As for writing, no evidence of which I'm aware. But all seems conjecture because we have this article and the one suggesting that literacy in rural Palestine was 1%??

A rather low opinion of the scholar group - keeping them in business! But definitely good for the bookshelf business. It probably is the Christ of Faith that always has been the touchstone for believers since the first days of Christianity. And, although it is not for everyone, I find that a great deal of very reasonable opinions can be made, appear reasonable and provide a better 'handle' on the historical Jesus (as long as one doesn't drink too much of their own bathwater). But ultimately I agree, it is Christ. Plus, for some this is fun! Especially on a Friday afternoon with a cup of tea or a glass of wine - depending on your belief system. It was a great way to meet girls in grad school :-)