Preterism

[JosephM]

I have, from time to time, posted something of Jesus' teachings (as best as I understand them to be) here. And I, too, have been met with the counter-response of, "How do we know that Jesus REALLY said this?" This response, to me, is a way to easily either brush a subject aside or close a conversation down. Is this really the best way for us to deal with the historicty of Christianity?

 

I agree that the question may be or is sometimes used by some to negate or as said to "easily brush a subject (or point of view) aside" Yet doesn't that remains a valid point of view for someone who chooses to believe thusly? Both views still stand for readers to read and make up their own minds so in my mind, nothing is really brushed aside except for him that uses such a question to do so. It seems to me, conversations are not shut down by such a question except possibly for the one posing such a question. Others, if interested are free to continue the conversation who do not in that case buy into the question as contributing to the conversation. After all, in my view, dialog need have no winners or losers per se.

 

Just my 2c worth,

Joseph

[BillM]

Ok, gentlemen, I get the point. We don’t know anything that Jesus said or did. We don’t even know if he existed. Therefore, discussing him and his teachings is ultimately irrelevant to Progressive Christianity, at least as it exists on this forum. Thank you for making that clear to me. I could say that Jesus was a pedophile and that viewpoint could be valid because we really don't know anything about Jesus, right?

 

But I do find it odd that the first Point of Progressive Christianity says that we "Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus" and then it is insisted that we don't really know anything about Jesus' life or teachings.

 

I don’t feel about this issue as the three of you do, but I won’t argue or discuss it further.

 

Peace.

 

BillM

Edited February 4, 2013 by BillM

[PaulS]

Therefore, discussing him and his teachings is ultimately irrelevant to Progressive Christianity, at least as it exists on this forum.

 

To the contrary Bill, discussing what Jesus' teachings may be and may mean is what actually attracts me to Progressive Christianity and IMO, is entirely relevant.

 

I could say that Jesus was a pedophile and that viewpoint could be valid because we really don't know anything about Jesus, right?

 

It could be entirely valid, but I think any sensible discussion might ask how you came to that viewpoint and what indicators pointed you to that view. I'd certainly be interested in what gave you an impression of such a Jesus.

 

But I do find it odd that the first Point of Progressive Christianity says that we "Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus" and then it is insisted that we don't really know anything about Jesus' life or teachings.

 

So Bill, do you find ALL the teachings of Jesus as espoused by some, as accurate and appropriate? Do you accept the teachings attributed to Jesus that indicates unbelievers will suffer in an eternal Hell? Or do question some of what is attributed to Jesus and actually say yourself that you don't think Jesus said this?

 

I'm unclear as to just when you think we should question and when we have to accept something as the truth?

 

One last point - I think Point 1 needs to be read in context alongside Point 5 - "Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes"

Edited February 4, 2013 by PaulS

[glintofpewter]

An appropriate answer to "How do you know that Jesus said that?" is "I believe the Bible is the Word of God." There would be many more questions but it would be a place to stand. Of course you will be challenged by those who see the Bible as human words about God.

 

But I do find it odd that the first Point of Progressive Christianity says that we "Have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus" and then it is insisted that we don't really know anything about Jesus' life or teachings.

 

What we are saying I think is that it is worth discussing, not that it is a blank canvas and we can say anything - well actually over the centuries it has all been said both good and ugly. "Let the little children come to me" - oh, my. To challenge is not to say it is not worth talking about. If Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet make the case. Others will make the case that if he saw himself as an apocalyptic prophet he is a failed prophet. I don't think that discussion threatens Jesus's call to us.

 

 

Dutch

[JosephM]

Ok, gentlemen, I get the point. We don’t know anything that Jesus said or did. We don’t even know if he existed. Therefore, discussing him and his teachings is ultimately irrelevant to Progressive Christianity, at least as it exists on this forum. Thank you for making that clear to me.

BillM,

 

From your response , i think you missed my point for sure but there is no need for me to labor any misunderstanding of my post. I think PaulS has answered sufficiently for me also and i think i do understand and sympathize with the point of your original post. I just perhaps see no problem with those who truly believe in questioning all things Jesus is recorded saying. If they are using that to brush aside an issue that is their prerogative whether i agree or not that that night be their real intent so that i am not affected by such a response as you seem to be. The recorded teachings of Jesus that do speak to me are not irrelevant to me and personally i don't believe they are irrelevant to PC as exists on this forum. Yet one is certainly allowed to disagree with that and hold a belief contrary to that.

 

Joseph

[skyseeker]

What I sometimes feel missing from liberal christianity is the belief that God is a person that can act in this world. IE, there is the Father, there is his son Jesus, there is the Holy Spirit, and that we can interact with this triune deity and that He interacts with us. In that regard, fundamentalistic christianity, even though I reject many of their doctrine, is ahead of us. That is also why I often simply retreat to an informal piety that was prominent historically, the idea of the "good God", as some people still exclaim it when they're overwhelmed by something. Fundamentalistic christianity says, God is not simply the good God, and liberal christianity says, there is no God, there are simply some worthwhile ethical teachings, and nothing more. God is, for me, a good power in whose centre Jesus Christ is sitting. I see it a lot like in Art Nouveau, and in other art, it feels a bit like fairytale but I jump into it and say it's true. And I've made spiritual experiences in that regard that were really profound. My favourite scriptures are the letters of Apostle John. Unlike Paul, he made justice subservient to love. And now our call is to make something out of love, which is at once the highest and the lowliest human virtue. Babies love food, adults love their spouses, old people love God.

[JosephM]

Skyseeker,

 

While my experience here is that many here may not share that view ( triune deity ), some do with a diversity of different understandings and there is no dogma or doctrine here that prevents such a belief in ones walk. I also like the way John puts many things and above all making Love and God synonymous.

 

Perhaps there is a middle road somewhere between your description of Fundamental Christianity and Liberal Christianity where God is more than either.

 

Joseph

[glintofpewter]

Skyseeker,

 

What I sometimes feel missing from liberal christianity is the belief that God is a person that can act in this world. IE, there is the Father, there is his son Jesus, there is the Holy Spirit, and that we can interact with this triune deity and that He interacts with us.

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

 

Yes. You are right that liberal Christians don't believe that there is a God that acts in the world. Sometimes it an agnostic stand that says no we cannot say anything about God. Some of those agnostics will use intimate language to talk about God in spite of that unknowing. just like one here who said succinctly and in my mind perhaps correctly that we must act morally because there is no source for morality. (I botched that paraphrase) We assert a love relationship with ultimate reality - either wondrous evidenced based or the unknowable other - in the face of not rationally knowing.

 

Dutch

[glintofpewter]

I collect trinities. Here are a few.

 

although we cannot name [God] and we cannot describe [God] we can know the presence of [God] when we experience wisdom, compassion, or creativity, a trinity worth our focus and meditation.  

 

 

 

John Spong

 

Source of life

 

source of love

 

ground of being

 

So, God to me is the source of life, and I worship God by living. God to me is the source of

love, and I worship God by loving. God to me is the ground of being, and I worship God by

having the courage to be everything I can be. John Spong in conversation with Michael Dowd

 

 

Generator/Creator/

 

Operator/Sustainer/Holy Spirit

 

Destroyer/Transformer/Jesus

 

The destruction and transformation of the known world with its lack of vision beyond itself and in desperate need of novelty, is found in the promise of a new resurrection in Jesus.

 

the following does not need the existence of God

 

Three Dimensions of God

 

Jesus spoke about God, (infinite face of God)

 

Jesus spoke to God, (intimate face of God)

 

 Jesus spoke as God. (inner face of God)

 

And Jesus invites us to speak of God in those three ways ourselves

 

The inner face of God—was Jesus’ true divine self. That was his Christ-consciousness; that was his own image of God that he was and that was being expressed in human flesh. Jesus was a spiritual being on a human journey, and he invited us to know that we too are spiritual beings on a human journey.

 

  Paul Smith in conversation with Michael Dowd

 

 

[skyseeker]

Thank you for posting these quotes, Glintofpewter.

 

I'm not sure if I can explain this right, but my main reason for why I became a christian was, firstly, the discovery of a Maker of this world who is still interested in us, and secondly, the belief that this Maker would do something about our death so that there would be a deep and infinite afterlife, which I connected to Jesus and His cross and resurrection.

 

I am liberal only insofar as I am rejecting hellfire doctrines, and I am rejecting the morality of ancient Israel as outdated at many places as well, except for the 10 commandments and the 2 love commandments which I personally follow because my conscience loves them.

 

To that end I don't think it is useful to deny the resurrection - although I know that not everyone can affirm it positively without being given the gift of faith. New Testament scripture was written primarily for people of faith, not for people of reason. The upstart christian religion had many troubles to overcome, in some ways similar to what afro-americans went through in the last two centuries, and they felt a sore need for justice and that is how we got to a concept of soteriology - man needing salvation, including legally. But I think that Jesus' sacrifice occurred exactly to get the legal images out of the way, yet Paul made the legal problem a permanent one that would extend until the Day of Judgment, and if you add condemnation theories, it goes even further than that for the condemned.

 

The problem is in finding that in scripture which is not an attempt to erect the legal orthodoxy that I perceive as erroneous. The problem is understanding Paul and finding out where exactly he erred in his thinking - "saving" the good Lord that damns no one and getting into a life and faith of love that overcomes evil better than a threat of punishment. That is why I sometimes feel uneasy about Jesus as a "strangled Savior". He was cut short before completing His mission of salvation. That's how it looks like objectively. But then there is spiritual salvation, the problem of death, the problem of the certainty by which we all can consider ourselves saved. And this spiritual salvation was accomplished at the cross and in the resurrection. Basically, if Jesus wouldn't have chosen the Cross, he would have been the lone fearless hero that had to become king of the world. But with Jesus choosing the Cross, we can see in the resurrection how evil does not win out in the end and that there can be many fearless heros of whom no one needs to be king of the world, who can remain ordinary people doing what is good and right while being assured of God's companionship and having a transformed knowledge of death - which becomes a door to the next world.

 

The ideas of the Day of Judgment I perceive as outcries of persecuted people. They needed to have something that would outweigh the evil that was done to them. Some like Stephanus and Jesus Himself were able to forgive their murderers, others cried out, "their blood be upon them". Because of the positive afterlife that awaits us all, we don't have to think retributively beyond measure like Augustine thought. This is the fallacy of the good and evil thinking that survived Christ's cleaning influence on mankind's religion.

[BillM]

Gentlemen,

 

Wikipedia defines Christianity as: “…a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in the canonical gospels and other New Testaments writings.” I cite this, not because it is an authoritative statement, but because it seems to resonate well with Point 1 of Progressive Christianity. No doubt, Christianity is more than this. But I’m not convinced that it can or should be less.

 

We acknowledge that words mean things. They carry concepts and ideas, they help us communicate our experiences. In this sense, they are important. Granted, they are always open to interpretation, they are able to be misunderstood. But when it comes to communication, they are the best we’ve got.

 

For me, I live in a “no-man’s-land” between two worlds that both claim the name “Christianity.” In one world, words have been given absolute values and interpretations. We are told precisely what they mean and not open to much reinterpretation or refreshing insight. Sometimes, these words are elevated to “divine” status, as if they were uttered by God himself. With that kind of weight assigned to these words, the only option is to either accept them as divine or reject them and walk away from that kind of Christianity.

 

In the other Christian world, words have become so ambiguous, so open to interpretation as to not mean much at all or to have no consensus whatsoever as to what they mean. It is assumed or sometimes stated that these words are “only” the words of men, men so shaped by their time and culture that there is nothing “divine” (with God as a source) in them whatsoever. And because these words are “only” the words of men who had no divine insight, but only human opinions, these words carry no weight other than what we may or may not personally assign to them. Take it or leave it. Your choice. They are, after all, only words.

 

I live between these two worlds and, speaking only for myself, I don’t find either of them comfortable or satisfying. A good example of this dilemma, for me, would be the words of Point 1: “By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus.”

 

For the first world, Jesus is God himself, the second Person of the Trinity, the One who came to die so God can forgive our sins and take us to Heaven someday. No discussion allowed. And God is the Person (or Persons) in the sky who is separate (holy) from us, who will either give out an eternal reward or an eternal punishment according to our beliefs and/or practices. No discussion allowed. And though this Christian world may affirm Jesus’ teachings, the focus is really on worshipping him and following the teachings of the apostle Paul. No discussion allowed.

 

For the second world, there is no substantial evidence that Jesus existed. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t. If he did, we have none of his writings. All we have, as I have stated previously, is the “hearsay” from his earliest followers. Do these teachings accurately reflect what this man, if he even existed, believed and taught? Who is to say? And to what or whom does the word “God” refer? Does God even exist? Is this the God of Abraham? Is this the God that the Bible points to? Is this some other God? Is this God just a metaphor for our highest ideals or values? Is this God simply human love and nothing more? Is this God the Tao, Allah, Atman, or some other concept/deity? In this world, we are free to fill these words with any meaning and interpretation that WE like, regardless of their original context, meaning, or their history.

The first Christian world tells me there is one and only one meaning to Christ. The second Christian world tells me that Christ can mean whatever I want it to. The first Christian world tells me that there is one and only one meaning to God. The second Christian world tells me that God can mean whatever I want it to.

 

In the first world, words are everything because they are defined for us. In the second world, they are nothing, for there is no consensus whatsoever.

 

I just wish there was a middle ground. I wish there was a place where, yes, Jesus and his “alleged” teachings could be intelligently questioned and discussed. Where I am in my journey, I don’t need for Jesus’ teachings to be absolutized as the “very words of God.” I know (or think I know) better. But neither do I need for him and his teachings to be just the opinions of some guy who may or may not have lived, of whom we know nothing, essentially irrelevant because we don’t know anything with 100% absolute certainty. For that view to be touted as “Christianity” seems, to me, a misnomer.

 

I wish there was a Christian world where I didn’t have to either 1) adhere 100% to the Church’s definitions and meanings of words or 2) define and fill the words with my own idiosyncratic meanings to the extent that because the definitions are so broad, they mean nothing. All or nothing. That seems to be the choice in modern Christianity. Either it all comes from God or none of it does (with the obligatory statement that we have not and never will define God).

 

So, for now, I live in a “no-man’s-land.”

 

BillM

[skyseeker]

The difficulty I perceive in christianity also has to do with having to go a faith route. In a child's understanding, and in many things I still am a child, it seems to me that God would answer to me in some way whenever I pray to Him. I could ask, God, do you exist? And He would answer, certainly, son, I do exist, what is it today? And this dialogue would continue forever.

 

But in reality it's like I have to walk somewhere in faith and at some point I would say, now I got something from God, because church dogma says this or that and this jives with what just happened.

 

IE, I read the bible, I see a particular faith idea, I accept it and carry it with me, then I experience something in my life as an input from God. At worst you need to have a thorough knowledge of the bible and a complete theology before you get anywhere with God. And the bible is in many places an invitation to become a theologian - whether you can explain every contradiction and arrive at a system that harmonizes scripture with a sense of life as we know it, so we can "apply Jesus" in our lives and get somewhere with him.

 

This is a bit like asking an angel to carry a statue of Jesus to you and moving it before your face until one day you come to believe that He looks nice.

 

That's how monotheism seems to be an idol variant of the faith that it actually preaches. We have a theological system and it is the yoke that we're supposed to bear. And because our theology either follows the bible literally or doesn't follow it at all, we don't even know what to make of scripture and never quite arrive at that deep and magical moment of KNOWING God and LOVING Him immediately from your heart.

 

That is why we can neither have a thoroughly biblical or a thoroughly unbiblical christianity. We must seek to know the truth of scripture. We must understand these people who are in these writings.

 

I think that is a call for prophecy about the past, that we engage in art and theology with the aim of getting through the clouds of unknowing until we have a clear idea who Noah, Abraham, David, Jesus etc, really were. The protestant reformation made people return to the bible. Now we need a return to the truth that the bible writes about - without forgetting that the bible uses humans to speak who may have gotten things wrong. That is how we must get over the simple sin and punishment / righteousness and reward plot of the bible. Jesus shows us a God who rather dies than to lash out against his murderers, and who ended a religious system that worked through sin, punishment, righteousness and reward. But at that point we still feel clueless. And it becomes apparent that everything we ever asked from God was usually bound to be something from this religious system of sin, punishment, righteousness and reward.

 

It's like we always just ask God for a kindergarten.

[PaulS]

Bill,

 

I wouldn't go to the extreme of saying that God & Jesus can be just WHATEVER we want them to be, particularly in the context of Progressive Christianity, but I certainly do agree with you that first world you mention is not an option.

 

I think there IS a consensus view here of what people think the main thrust of Jesus' message is - to love, to have compassion, to hold each other up. I am happy that we are free to debate and question and scrutinise what is said about or attributed to Jesus. To me, none of that detracts from the picture I hold about Jesus.

 

Does it mean I am uncertain about what 'God' actually means/is? Do I know for sure what happens after I die? Is there really a hell and a heaven in some sort of afterlife? Is even entertaining all of these thoughts just a waste of time? Perhaps I will find out one day, perhaps I won't.

 

In the meantime I have one choice - to live. And to help me live what I consider a happier and more fulfilled life I usually bring to mind many of the messages attributed to Jesus. Not all of them of course, but many. Does this come from God? Who knows.

 

But I don't apologise that I don't fit other people's definition of a Christian. To be honest, maybe I am even a little antagonstic towards those who want me to deny Jesus because I don't hold their view of what a Christian is. I got enough of that when I turned my back on fundamental Christianity. Whilst I think I understand what you're saying about PC perhaps not being Christian enough by definition, in that you feel it doesn't somehow focus enough on Jesus in some way, I can't say that this makes sense to me. Just what is it you want PC to be? We have to agree on what Jesus said or didn't say, according to Bill? We shouldn't disagree or dicuss what Jesus is or isn't because it's tiring? To me the 'middle ground' you wish for simply means sliding the scale in one direction till it reaches 'Bill' point.

 

It seems to me that you want more certainty than this group provides, but not so much certainty that you feel you're back in the clutches of dogmatic fundamentalism. It seems on the scale of things you wish most of us grouped around the same point concerning God & Jesus rather than be spread out along the scale as most of us seem to be.

 

I don't have a suitable answer to your dillemma of living in between two worlds and wanting something else. My only thoughts are don't worry about it too much and don't get hung up on it not being exactly what you want. But that of course is advice that has to fit for oneself - it works for me but I'm sure not others.

Edited February 5, 2013 by PaulS

[BillM]

Paul, I suspect you (and others here) are right, this particular group is simply not for me, probably due to my own background, context, and where I am in my journey. I've tried fitting in here for a number of years now, but things never seem to pan out. The reasons for this are probably numerous and complicated, but I don't doubt that it does come down the fact that I see things that I think are important quite differently than most here on the forum seem to see them. How does one change one's value system? If it happens at all, it probably takes a long time. And it probably happens because one has found better values.

 

But this thread demonstrates to me, once again, how I am the "odd-man-out" here and how/why this kind of Christianity is not for me. Believe it or not, I am thankful for that. Life is made up of a series of course corrections and it is often helpful to know what doesn't work for us as much as we want to know what does work. All will be okay. I am still in my Father's hands and nothing can separate me from that love.

 

So I bid you and all the rest here a good farewell. Thanks for interacting with me. I wish you all nothing but the best. Say a prayer, if you are the praying type, for me or wish me luck that I do find some kind of 'middle ground' for fellowship somewhere. Perhaps someday I will be ready for Progressive Christianity. But that day is not today. I feel like Goldilocks trying the different furniture in the Bears' house and finding it all too big. I need to find something "just right" for where I am. I hope I do. Blessings and peace.

 

Best regards to all,

BillM

[PaulS]

Paul, I suspect you (and others here) are right, this particular group is simply not for me, probably due to my own background, context, and where I am in my journey. I've tried fitting in here for a number of years now, but things never seem to pan out. The reasons for this are probably numerous and complicated, but I don't doubt that it does come down the fact that I see things that I think are important quite differently than most here on the forum seem to see them. How does one change one's value system? If it happens at all, it probably takes a long time. And it probably happens because one has found better values.

 

But this thread demonstrates to me, once again, how I am the "odd-man-out" here and how/why this kind of Christianity is not for me. Believe it or not, I am thankful for that. Life is made up of a series of course corrections and it is often helpful to know what doesn't work for us as much as we want to know what does work. All will be okay. I am still in my Father's hands and nothing can separate me from that love.

 

So I bid you and all the rest here a good farewell. Thanks for interacting with me. I wish you all nothing but the best. Say a prayer, if you are the praying type, for me or wish me luck that I do find some kind of 'middle ground' for fellowship somewhere. Perhaps someday I will be ready for Progressive Christianity. But that day is not today. I feel like Goldilocks trying the different furniture in the Bears' house and finding it all too big. I need to find something "just right" for where I am. I hope I do. Blessings and peace.

 

Best regards to all,

BillM

 

Hmmm, I don't recall saying or even hinting that this group is not for you, so I'd like it to be clear that such is your interpretation alone.

 

As I raised previously, although you seem to take the line that you see things that you think are important quite differently than most here on the forum seem to see them, I am still not clear on where you draw that line. It seems you too don't accept everything attributed to Jesus as being of Jesus, but when others question some of this you seem to say indicate that this isn't what you think things are about. Maybe I am missing something, but to me it seems you agree with those who questions what is/isn't Jesus, but want a line drawn somewhere in the sand, when in my opinion one can't be drawn.

 

In any event, I have enjoyed interacting with you and I hope you do see fit to return to join in discussion any time.

 

Cheers

Paul

[JosephM]

BillM ,

 

Know that you are always welcome, accepted and appreciated here no matter what personal disagreement you may have or think you have with any individual view or your interpretation of that view or of this forum,

 

Love in Christ, your friend ,

Joseph.

[glintofpewter]

Bill,

 

Take care.

 

'Til next time

 

Dutch