davestelzer

(My blogger profile is in my signature)

Dave

davidseltzer:

You are twisting my words and Saint Paul's. I clearly explained (when you were accsuing me obfuscating) that when we sin (by whatever means, the people in question exchanged worship fo the Creator for the creature) and without the grace God gives us we are much less apt to commit these sins. You would do well to note that Saint Paul never says paganism causes homosexuality, but rather that after falling into paganism the people in question were given over to their desires which have been pre-existing. No serious Christian could say that a desire for homosexuality is sinful. Dwelling on it, entertaining it and acting on those desires certainly is. But not the temptation. If temptation were sin it would be meaningless to fight temptations and grow in virtue.

 

As an aside... why does it matter to me what scholars, scientists, and psychologists think about God and His Revelation. None of those groups even come close to claiming infallibility. The scholars fo the Jesus Seminar (including your hero Spong) vote on what truth might be with coloured marbles, they vote... is this a serious method for determining truth, whether a bunch of people think it might be true? If God's Revelation were up for vote, or something we could determin ourselves there would be no need for That is simply the fiction of paul. I hope I can reach you with this reasonable assertion.Revelation, it would be self-defeating. Scientists, good scientists anyway, know that the scientific method is used for testing hypothesis and formulating theories. These are changeable, and often are changed when better data comes along. And psychologists? We end up in the area of your voting scholars again. The APA defined homosexuality as a mental disorder until they voted to change it. Which time were they right?

So bold, you know better than all the Patriarchs, Saints, Martyrs and Doctors of the Church do you? You can call this bold I suppose, but I think most honest people would call it pride.

 

If I understand you correctly, the Bible, that book that inspired the Saints, Martyrs and Doctors is not good, but a book written by one man, in one very specific place at one very specific time (IE: the post-Christian Anglican Church of the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries) should be my universal guide?

The fiction of [saint] Paul? Can you please tell me then, for the sake of clarity, how you know which of Saint Paul's letters are fictional and which aren't? Or maybe how a simple man like myself can know this difference without leaving you a post everytime I'm uncertain?

 

Please do not reduce the Bible (or the rest of Existence) down to the tiny narrow little window which science acknowledges as its domain?

James,

Psalm 100:5 (Amplified version)

5. For the Lord is good; His mercy and lovingkindness are everlasting, His faithfulness and truth endure to all generations.

Here is a lesson in mercy: His mercy is everlasting! How big is that? Infinitely so. His mercy is infinite. That means to me that God forgives sin. How much? Infinitely much. God's mercy is greater than our ability to sin. God has mercy on me and you.. greater than our capability to sin. Our sin is bound by our mortality but God's mercy is greater than all of mortality. God's mercy is huuuuuuge!

I am liberated to know that whether my sin is small, or great, God has mercy on me. I believe that means that my venial sins are forgiven and my mortal sins are forgiven. But I have to believe it... there is no certainty. The bible promises everlasting mercy, but I have to believe it... there is no certainty.

Mercy is a fundamental concept that I continually draw upon in order to survive my mistakes. The concept of infinite mercy continues even if all the bibles are burned and we have to start all over again with revelation from the beginning. My bible returns to dust but the concept survives. I don't worship the bible I worship the concept of God's mercy everlasting.

Now consider the concept of unconditional love. For examples: God loves me whether I meet the condition of Christian or Pagan. And, God loves me whether or not I meet the condition of mortal sin against my soul or venial sins only or even sinless . My bible does not reveal unconditional love. The greatest statement of my bible is found in 1 Jn 4: God is love. So the bible is limited here. Unconditional love is greater than my bible. I believe a god that does not measure up to unconditional love is not a true God. I believe God's love is greater than the bible. The bible starts with a very wrathful punishing God and progresses to the revelation that God is love but then stops. Yet God is the source of unconditional love not spoken of in the bible. Is God limited from unconditional love or is God greater than the bible?

My point is that I believe God is greater than the bible. The bible is a guide but not the lexicon of knowledge.

My certainty is that God is a source of love and a source of life and the ground of being. But this certainty will be replaced by revelations to the next generation apart from the bible. There really is no certainty and I have come to accept that.

Having no certainty has transformed my thinking and forced me to change my security system from a bible believing fundamentalist to a progressive Christian and perhaps to agnostic and even non-theist. I believe more in an eternal rest then an afterlife. With my pattern of mistakes (which I try to learn from) I am growing more in sin (and grace) than in virtue. My virtue if any is to avoid repeating my mistakes.

Do you believe the desire for homosexuality is any more serious than the desire for heterosexuality? I do not.

regards, Dave

Dave:

 

Let's look at wat Saint Paul said in a a larger context of the verses surrounding it, without all the aplifications in square brackets.

 

Saint Paul's First Letter to the Romans 1:16-30

 

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. 17 For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: 19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

 

21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. 23 And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. 24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. 28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, 30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, [...]

 

 

It becomes clear that their homosexuality was not CAUSED by their paganism and sins against God by denying Him justice in worship and reverence, but rather, because of these sins, God withdrew His grace from them (something that happens to everyone who commits a mortal sin). In this state of sinfulness they did not resist their disordered temptations and fell into these sins.

 

This is a lesson to everyone, if we deny God that which is His by right (worship and love) we separate ourselves from Him and lose the special help and strength which is His grace. Thankfully of course, we can choose to be made whole by believing, repenting, making a good confession and making our penance with a firm intention to live a better life (either from fear of Hell - imperfect contrition or from pure love of God - perfect contrition; we should always strive/pray for perfect contrition).

 

It si important to remember that God never causes us to sin, but if we choose to sin we have, by our own acts, told God to buzz off. The Lord loves and respects us so He will not force Himself onto us and will leave us if we so desire. Without His strength given to us through grace, our tainted natures do tend towards sin so yes, we may start to commit these terrible acts.

 

What a terrible thing to be in a state of sin, for whatever reason.

James,

You have obscured my point and changed the subject to make a plug for your biblical ideology.

First your ideology:

You are welcome to believe in a God that expects obedience and worship. It is good that you want to be a good person in true union with God. It is good that you want to avoid sin... you probably won't break any laws that way.

We are different though in our paradigms which support our belief systems and ideology. But God can handle this difference easily. God has indeed allowed for such a difference.

In my paradigm, God doesn't need the bible to be God. God doesn't need to order the earth or the people. God is not a divine parent who sweeps down to rescue mankind and then return up to her home in the sky.

It is then left up to us to order ourselves. The bible did not drop out of the sky. It was formed over a period of 1000 years. Even though many believe the bible to be complete it does not solve all our moral dilemmas like abortion; stem cell research; and same sex marriage. I have boldly stepped outside the shell of the bible to examine other evidence and resources for knowledge. If you examine gay people themselves you will find that they are not indulgent sinners depraved of grace and truth. They are law abiding people when they have the reasonable option to be. Many of them want monogamous marriages and validation that they are loving, caring, people with the right to enjoy the privileges of civil marriage... just like you and me.

If you don't examine other resources than the bible you will be living in a shell of ignorance.

The bible can inspire us but it is just a helping guide. We cannot depend on it for every answer. Modern technology and society call for other more advanced resources like the internet or possibly J. S. Spong's book, The Sins of Scripture. We must not live in the cocoon of the Dark Ages. Even the bible says "knowledge will increase". Let us accept the modern world and let knowledge increase. Let us be citizens of the modern international globally complex world. Let the wisdom of the past be replaced by the wisdom of the present.

Now, my point:

It is not true that incorrect worship causes homosexuality even if the biblical ideology in the context is your paradigm: no scholar or scientist or psychologist believes that. We say that homosexuality is probably caused by brain formations in the gestational period before birth and is something that one wakes up to like being left handed. It used to be held that left handed people were sinister but not any more. We have become advanced in our understanding of left handedness and also our understanding of what causes homosexualty. It is not caused by incorrect worship of statues of mortal men, birds, beasts, or reptiles. That is simply the fiction of paul. I hope I can reach you with this reasonable assertion.

Regarding that, please do not reduce the world and science down to the trivial solution of the bible's limited scope.

Will you please agree with my point?

Dave

dave:

While I'm not as bibilically literate as I should be, where does Saint Paul say this?

james

Romans 1:23ff (Amplified Ver.)

23 And by them [gays] the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images [statues], resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves [gay activity],

25 Because they [gays] exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed forever!

It seems paul is saying he is 'holier than thou' (sanctimony) because he practices correct worship. I think this passage is quietly the unspoken huge fear of fundamentalists among themselves. Why can not literalists acknowlege that paul was wrong on this one? I think a caution is due the fundamentalists not to worship 'words' more than truth...

Dave

Wow, apparently putting in a full stop, laughing face isn't enough to indicate that someone might not mean they're actually looking for fisticuffs. I might be a jerk, but sheesh that seems a bit excessive (and if I can recall correctly I've started a bunch of posts with similar things)

 

My face isn't particularly red though. A little bored I suppose though with things changing from the topic I proposed to, role-playing and costumes in the bedroom. That seems like an odd segue, but this is the internet after all.

 

Dave was the only one who said anything realted to the topic so I guess I can answer him. (des wasn;t far off the mark on Spong though)

 

Dave

I'm actually not especially confused.

 

What is your premise for saying that Scripture isn't Sacred if it offends? Jesus said a few things that he acknowledged were offending people (His description of the Real Presence in the Eucharist comes to mind - Gospel of Saint John 6) John the Baptist wasn't afraid to offend Herod and it cost him his head and the desceration of his body by having the head showed around on a silver platter. And certainly the Prophets of the Old Testament weren't afraid to offend people, they were stoned to death with an alarming frequency. Being asked by God to work on His behalf is more often than not a short route to the gallows (or historical/cultural equivalent). Are you saying that when the prophets called for justice for the poor that they weren't prophesying for God? That all the offensive stuff Jesus said about loving your neighbour and turnining the other cheek were the unDivine parts of Scripture? I must admit that would seem to be a new tactic for someone who, seemingly (given the endorsement of Spong), a progressive.

 

As for Saint Paul, admittedly he was a man. I doubt you could find a Christian who would call him divine. But he claims to speak in the name of the Lord often during his parts of Holy Writ. So are you saying he's a liar? Or a lunatic? Or thruthful? I imagine you've heard of the trilemma before, but I'm interested to see if you have found a way out of it.

 

I appreciate the offer to read some of Spong's silliness but I think I would rather re-read the DaVinci Code before I got into that. And that's saying alot. I don't want to go too far about him here though, back in the olden days I got in trouble for referring to him as John "Always-Wrong" Spong (this is included for historical purposes only and shouldn't be construed as an attempt to insult him again)

James

Words can inspire us and move us emotionally. Movies can inspire us and move us emotionally. I don't worship words or films per se I really am concerned with the inspired feelings. The inspiration makes me feel good, feel happy or sad, feel like justice was done, etc.

If I am inspired by God's holiness or sacredness it may be her 'separateness' that I feel is astounding. God never speaks or appears to us directly. God speaks indirectly, through the universe we are placed in. So in this way all the universe is sacred to reveal the meaning of God.

Yet paradoxically if all is sacred then nothing is actually sacred or more especially inspiring than the next: secular. Therefore everything is sacred and everything is secular to me.

By the way, i'm a jerk too!

Paul became the first to write of Jesus. Some of what he wrote is inspiring to me, but not sacred because other of what he wrote like, homosexuality is caused by incorrect worship of birds and creeping things,etc. just is not true. He may have been partly inspired and partly way off. He wasn't 'informed' by modern science and research. Paul was human. To me paul is to blame for our modern cultural scism over same sex marriage, etc. Paul is not 'holy writ' to me, just another opinion.

I'm different than you since I don't feel that being offensive is the goal or credential to obtain... I feel being informed is the goal... or no? I hope debating with you will encourage you to be less offensive and more informed. I guess I'm more gnostic than I realized! Oh, well.

Dave

Does this passages from Sacred Scripture offend you?

 

Saint Paul's Letter to the Epehsians 5:21-24

 

 

 

 

 

 

That oughta be enough for tonight.

It seems u r confused. If scripture offends it cannot be called sacred... If scripture is sacred why should it offend anyone? Obviously the element missing is the human element: paul is human so is the scripture of paul... the scripture is not sacred inerrant or infallible! I suggest you read J. S. Spong's book: The Sins of Scripture to become a more informed debater.

Dave

As an independent student of the bible and by virtue of constitutional freedom of religion, I am free to be either liberal or conservative as a response to what I read.

For example, If I am inspired by the mercy of God I may choose to be liberal. If I am inspired by the holiness of God I may choose to be conservative.

I am free to change my mind on each inspiration. Conservatively for example I may choose to eat health food. Liberally, I may choose to eat frozen custard.

Conservatively I may choose to pray for universal healthcare in the USA. Liberally, I may choose to politely greet people on the street.

The point is: the bible is both conservative and liberal. I am free to respond either way. Both are valid responses.

It does not have to be either / or, it can be both / and!

Dave

Yes, compassion, tolerance and social justice are extremely important. However, fighting for tolerance for Gay and Lesbians or for the rights and value of people with disabilities, takes a great deal of inner strength when up against homophobia or the trend to do away with the lives of people with disabilities.

 

Where does one get this inner strength?

 

Christ in you, may s/he fill thy Spirit

 

Marilyn

Marilyn,

I find your inner strength to be an inspiration to me. You carry the fight very well. I commend you. Homophobia is a formidable enemy as is the apathy and neglect toward those with disabilities. I admire you for even mentioning these disorders on this website. Bravo, girl! U da woman!

I am from St. Louis, MO... where r u from?

Dave

I found this site today and thought I'd join up. I'm a 22-year-old ELCA Lutheran and I'd love to talk to my fellow progressive Christians (and non-Christians!). Just so you know, I have a tendency to lurk a lot, but not post very often. I enjoy reading your posts, though!

 

I look forward to meeting you all!

Hello SabreRoseTiger,

Please do talk when you can muster up the inspiration! I'd love to read your thoughts! What does progressive mean to you? What brought you to view this message board? Your thoughts are just as important as anyone's if not more important! Short posts are as important as long posts. I'd love to hear your message when you have a moment to write! Thank you for lurking but please share if you like!

Dave

I stumbled upon the progressive christian website. It is very inspirering! I'm Jim and live in Bellefonte, Pa. I'm 33, married and have three kids. By proffesion I manage a photo lab and my wife and I recently stated a bussiness Lotus Mobile Spa. Spiritually I concider myself to be a sophianic gnostic, but have not really found a faith I can wholeheartedly connect with. Strangely I have some sense of calling to become a minister. A minister of what? I don't know. Can't really support a family with a career as a gnostic minister, but in an ideal world this is what I would do. If anyone has any ideas let me know, because I will not rest until I find out what the meaning of this calling is. There is know dout that I would be good at a career of this sort, but the how to get there part is overwhelming at this point. Any thoughts would be appriciated. Thanks

Jim

Jim,

I suggest you begin by sharing what you mean by sophianic gnosticism. This subject is relatively new to me. Can you describe other kinds of gnosticism? How does sophianic gnosticism appeal to you? Please share your thoughts when you have a minute to write! Thank you in advance.

Dave

I didn't see this here, what'ya'all think of the new women head of Episcopal church? Also supposedly the new head of the Southern Baptists is a kindler gentler one.

 

As for above, about time, but I don't know about repackaging Southern Baptists-- think it is mostly a new

package (as in old wine in new bottles). OTOH, some conservatives have been taking bolder stands lately-- global warming, conservation, AIDs. So who knows.

 

Hope someone might have something more interesting to say. :-)

--des

des,

A good call by the leading mainline Episcopals. I think she will be cautiously liberal and inclusive. I like the Episcopals for so often taking the lead, they are the real progressive christian examples. Bravo!

Dave

Dave:

 

If it's any comfort to you I believe that it's impossible to live in today's America and NOT have some sort of mental aberration. I feel that we are all under constant attack by our environment, especially in urban areas. However where I live now is better than where I used to try to be.

 

flow....

Flow,

To be human is to acknowlege "I have a flaw"! I agree humanity is plagued with flaws. I like your honesty to admit you are also human. Maybe the american cultural flaw is to impose onto others - our flaws - as the best flaws.

I am curious where did you used to live? I live just outside the city limits of St. Louis, MO. We are fairly mixed racially and I hope to spread my optimism to the inner city neighbors as well as other suburbanites. I believe in Jesus' love to all.

Dave

Welcome RfrancisR ! I appreciate your candor and computer savvy ! I also hope your needs will find a rewarding experience.

Dave

I like the way you put that, Dave. I wholeheartedly agree.

My stigma is mental illness. I was diagnosed bipolar in 1990. I have had trouble with stability most of my life.

No obligation to respond you all, but would anyone like also to share a stigma? I realize this may or may not apply to you.

In a sharing mood,

Dave

.

 

 

 

or as a noun

 

Main Entry: 2progressive

Function: noun

b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action

liberal is defined as the following:

 

 

Main Entry: 2liberal

Function: noun

: a person who is liberal: as a : one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways

We must also consider the stigma of lawlessness and the nature of control. Liberals and conservatives must

both obey the law. Liberals are not under the control of conservatives. Liberals are free from control but not free to break the law. Some bad laws are made to enforce control. The constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I am glad I am a liberal under the law but not under the control of silence or religion. I respect the laws of physics and common sense. I am in doubt about the ACLU. Too extreme for me. Progressive describes my hope. I hope for inclusiveness of those bearing a stigma. I hope for inclusiveness of those not having access to universal healthcare, etc.

Dave

Undone,

You have not said your age. I'm 50 years. I am an ex-evangelical and ex-fundamentalist. I used to practice witnessing and worship. I also felt an emptiness and uncertainty after leaving my place of fellowship at the age of 31 years.

It took years of separation and growth to finally accept that there is no certainty in this life. I learned to live everyday with uncertainty.

I had help along the way. For 6 years I participated in a day program for the mentally ill. Later I read some of Spong's books: I recommend - A New Christianity for a New World. Spong's website is www.johnshelbyspong.com . Here you can subscribe to his weekly articles, if you choose. Spong has helped me tremendously with coming to grip with common christian myths.

I hope this helps you too!

Dave

Greg

I second the nomination of John Shelby Spongs' books. He is a very progressive writer who does follow the message of Jesus while not accepting the bible totally as it is given to us. I discerned many new awakenings from reading his material.

You might be able to find a progressive christian church in your area by searching this website (TCPC).

Dave

The bible is useful but limited by it's time frame.

 

Dave,

 

I like Marcus Borg's suggestion in The Heart of Christianity that the Bible is sacrament. In other words, it becomes a medium for experiencing God right here and now. So even though the Bible has a cultural/historical frame (just like any book), it can be a platform for a brand new experience. <<Geez Fatherman, let's see how many different ways you can say the same thing >>

 

For your consideration,

 

Fatherman (also David)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fatherman,

My curiosity is peaked to read Borg's The Heart of Christianity! I have read Meeting Jesus Again... and it was a keeper.

Dave

I am finding it interesting to dialogue in this message board. I am sure there is a great deal to learn from each of you. I hope I do not hurt any of you in my choice of words but if I do I apologize in advance.

I live in St. Louis, MO and I am 50 years. I think religion and philosophy are fascinating subjects and I love to see and interact with what people have to say. It is exciting to live on the crest of a new wave in the thinking and understanding of western christianity and all the possible nuances thereof! I can't wait for the next personal opinion to come along!

Enjoying your posts,

Dave

Has anyone mentioned Osiris, Dionysus, Bachus, and/or Mithras? All those myths are very powerful spiritual allegories.......just like the Jesus myth. 

 

IMO, the resurrection is, quite possibly, the most important part of the myth. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gnosteric,

When I was young I thought it was imperative to believe in the ressurection. I grasped desperately after the myth only to find later that I must die for my own sins... Now (at 50) I just want to 'enter God's rest'. What is important to you about the ressurection?

Dave

I didn't mention Spong, but now that you bring him up, he's a darn good one to read, too!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dang it! I meant Crossan. I had Crossan's face pictured in my mind when I wrote the reply. I don't know why I said Spong. Argh!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aletheia,

Perhaps it was a 'Freudian Slip' of which I also have been known to slip into now and then!

If you try Spong I suggest This Hebrew Lord... which you will undoubtably find that Spong is very much a follower of Jesus... an easy read!

Good luck,

Dave

Dave:

 

I have mentioned this technique elsewhere here on the boards sometime ago. I find that if I read the KJV and trace the root meanings of words or phrases I have questions about back to their Greek and Chaldean origins in a Strong's Concordance, I am much more able to derive a mental picture regarding the array of meanings that are possible and probable. It takes a long time to do it this way, but I haven't found a better way to improve my interpretive outlook on the scriptures in the bible. Hope it helps you on your quest.

 

flow....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Flow:

Spong has done two word studies that he mentions in This Hebrew Lord and other works. He notes that the early Jewish authors describe God by the terms "ruach" and "nephesh". One means 'wind' and the other means 'breath'. The terms describe God in a very natural way. There was no science to aid in the writings. No biology or meteorology to explain further. Early writers had to go by their own meager observations.

The highest level of explanation of God is found in 1 John toward the end of the bible. God is revealed as 'Love'. "Sh/he who abides in love abides in God and God in her". There is a higher revelation of God not found in the bible: God is Unconditional Love! Could it be that no amount or intensity of study of the bible would ever result in the discovery that God is Unconditional Love?

To me it is obvious that the bible may be somewhat inspiring but may be limited in it's ability to understand modern contemporary terminology of God. My point is that the Love of God is not simply the bible but that the Love of God is greater than the bible. The bible is useful but limited by it's time frame. This observation may be helpful and necessary to learn to love all of God's creatures across the racial and gender gaps and to love and accept all the untouchables in our multi- cultural society. Do you agree?

Just curious,

Dave

Davestelzer:

 

This makes a lot more sense to me than most of the myths about Jesus that have been handed down to us over the centuries. But, I make this point knowing that myth making has been the essential ingredient in belief systyems for at least 10,000 years, and probably longer than that. What we have in the case of Jesus stories is a 2,000 year long disagreement between interpreters and orthodoxy about what may have happened and when.

 

Welcome to the boards Dave !

 

flow....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for the warm welcome flowperson!

As an interpreter I have to acknowledge that without adequate information in the bible I am ultimately forced to speculate like everyone else. An orthodox person must speculate that he/she has been given adequate information...

I hope that lights a fuse!

Dave S

According to Jesus Seminar scholar John Shelby Spong, there was no empty tomb no witness of the crucifiction no witness of resurrection all indicated by the clue "they all fled each disciple to his own home". Jesus died and was buried or 'dumped' by Roman soldiers. Their was no physical or spiritual resuscitation of Jesus' body. The disciples had all gone back to Galilee.

The Easter Moment, says Spong, occurred with Peter, 6 months later, while fishing and reminiscing with Andrew James and John. It occurs to Peter while dining on bread and wine that Jesus' death is for the purpose of new hope in the coming of the kingdom of God. Jesus' death did not end the kingdom rather entered in the Kingdom of God. 'Jesus is Lord' was their rallying cry. Broken bread was the symbol of this new entrance of God's empirical reign. Remembering Jesus' words and parables became the medium and substance associated with the revelation to Peter.

The message of Jesus' life spread to all the disciples and followers, then circulated to new prospects. This new Jewish reformation began to be called The Way. The Way had many versions and various leaders and proponents and was recorded and circulated in many different scriptures some of which were lost to that time period.