Progressive Christology

[AletheiaRivers]

Thanks. I think I understand. I appreciate the explanation. I swear I'm not trying to be dense.

[cunninglily]

I understand what you're saying... Yes, Jesus the historical figure was born, lived, and died in time and space just like the rest of us.  But I also don't want to completely separate Jesus from Christ in the sign, because Jesus as man is part of what makes the sign mean what it means.  Perhaps Jesus the man + Christ is the divine son => Jesus Christ the sign.  Anyway, terminology aside, I think we're very much on the same page.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree on all counts. I believe the humanity of Jesus to be a great key; a great mystery and that Jesus the man + Christ IS the divine son, amen and amen.

 

 

lily

[cunninglily]

I said, I regard Jesus Christ theologically as a sign, not as a historical figure.  Yes, Jesus was a historical figure, but the (merely) historical figure isn't what I'm talking about when I use Jesus Christ in a theological sense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is a scripture the gist of which states that we no longer know Jesus in the flesh, but in the Spirit. Do any of you know the scripture I am referring to? I think you have hit on something important in the above post Fred, though I'm hard put to find words for it right now.

 

There are so many things coming up in this thread for me that I don't know where to start. The issue of *effort* or "works" as distinct (are they distinct?) from the initiatory grace and workings of the Father in us is one thing (which was actually my intent in starting the "praxis and ritual" thread)...and the meaning of Jesus Christ as The Way and what that might mean is another. I've been exploring the idea that The Way is the paradigm; that The Way is Christ but The Way is not identical or inseparable from Jesus the Christ. What I mean is that the Truth is not in words or doctrines, the Truth IS and Jesus demonstrates The Way of Truth as the Christ which IS The Way.

 

...just thoughts,

 

 

lily

[AletheiaRivers]

Works versus faith was also my reason for starting the Catholicism and Evangelicalism thread. Fred and Darby both posted great stuff. I was hoping DCJ or James or CurlyTop would throw in their two cents.

 

From all the research I've done, it seems to me that the "works" argument is really a strawman because I've yet to come across a Christian group who says works is more important than faith or that works can lead you to God. All that I've read and talked to say that works flow from faith, even Fundamentalists, so I'm not sure why Catholics (and Orthodox) are always getting picked on in the works department.

Edited May 7, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[cunninglily]

...this will be OT in some ways,

 

but I've spent some of the weekend perusing on-line sources concerning the historicity of "the figure" Jesus, and writings and discussions concerning early christianity (pre-fourth century), and though much of it is exciting to me personally, and important and enlightening in an "ah hah" kind of way, I realize that there will always be some schism between the "mystics" pursuit of the "heart of religion" and the historians pursuit of "the heart of religion"...if indeed it can be said that historians pursue the "heart"...but I think many do.

 

I don't think we can reason ourselves out of the proverbial paper bag. I think the pursuit of "history" and "truth" and "proof" is endless, though not useless or unnecessary exactly, just that at some point, if one is genuinely religious and interested in being transformed by religion, one must "can" the endless reasoning, and endeavor to experience the *reality* religion points to.

 

It appears to me that there is ample evidence to support an understanding of pre-Constantinian Christianity as a true Mystery Tradition, a tradition of gnosis (which is not to be confused with the religion of Gnosticism), experience, and revelation. One thing all Mystery Traditions share in common is the understanding that what is true is not always Truth, and that Truth must be encountered and is impossible to tease out through Reasoning alone.

 

W.B. Yeats, himself a student of the Western Mysteries, said, "Life being illusory one must in some way be deluded in order to triumph in it". There is much paradox and depth in this statement, and, I believe, much truth. What is religion but the endeavor to live the best you know, and more than this, the best you can IMAGINE and envision. This is very difficult. Symbols and myths and stories and art...all these things stir us and inspire us and enthuse us...and against these things there is no proof or even any need for proof. When you catch a glimpse of reality and your inseparable union with God will you need proof that the vehicle that carried you there was historically true? I doubt it.

 

...just some early morning thoughts,

 

lily

[Lolly]

Thank you, lily. That was nicely said and, in my own view, to the point. I agree with your impressions of early Christianity as a mystery religion.

 

A buddhist friend of mine is fond of saying of religion in general that there's little percentage to be gained for any institutional religion if the goal is to fully liberate the follower-- and that there's little to be gained for any spiritual follower if the goal is not to become fully liberated.

 

Liberation, in this context, is a kind of zen shorthand for the process of freeing oneself from the illusion inherent in clinging to concepts and ideas so as to become capable of seeing things as they are and fully experience/appreciate the mystery that lives and breathes in the everyday.

[cunninglily]

Liberation, in this context, is a kind of zen shorthand for the process of freeing oneself from the illusion inherent in clinging to concepts and ideas so as to become capable of seeing things as they are and fully experience/appreciate the mystery that lives and breathes in the everyday.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, Lolly...it is the "mystery" that I long to fully experience. I have no objection to being "deluded" by something neither "factually" or "historically" true, in fact I pray for it. If facts and historical knowledge offer nothing but the same daily round of work, eat, watch tv, go to bed, smug in the knowledge that "all the myths" are 'nothing but' metaphor that can be explained away...than I choose delusion. I'd rather be "a fool" than one of the fat and contented "wise". but thats just me.

 

lily

[Theo-Maniac]

The way I see it, he wasn't the son of G-d, we all are, its even in the original text of the scriptures that way (the word that is translated as the in Jesus' statement about his relation to G-d in greek actually means A, not THE). However, I also don't believe he was simply a good person. He did fulfill the prophecy of a saviour in the old testament, but nowhere does it say anything in the OT (that I'm aware of, and I'm basing this off of discussions with my counselor who is a Jew and has studied the Tanakh (the original version of the Old Testament) in Hebew for almost his whole life) about Jesus being THE son of G-d. I personally believe that he was a student of Hindu Yoga (and I do have evidence to support this), and that he was a master of the Yogic Arts (which include control over all functions of the body, which basically means that when he was on the cross, for example, he could have easily simulated being dead by going limp and slowing his heart-beat so he was still conscious, but to such a small degree that people at the time couldn't tell).

[FredP]

I personally believe that he was a student of Hindu Yoga (and I do have evidence to support this), and that he was a master of the Yogic Arts (which include control over all functions of the body, which basically means that when he was on the cross, for example, he could have easily simulated being dead by going limp and slowing his heart-beat so he was still conscious, but to such a small degree that people at the time couldn't tell).

But why would he do that??

[AletheiaRivers]

In response to Lily and Fred's wonderful thoughts on the "Progressive Christianity" thread I posted this. I'll post it here too and see if the conversation migrates.

 

Aletheia wrote: I tried so hard to write a post for this thread to further clarify what I mean in my previous post. I've erased it three times.  

 

I have a "metaphysical idea" as to "why we are here and the meaning of life" and I'm looking for that idea to exist within Christianity. Thing is - I think it DOES exist within Christianity and that someone, somewhere, has fleshed it out and written about it.  

 

* Was Jesus "just" a man (like us) who became Divine, perhaps like other humans have (Buddha, etc ...)? And if so, why them? Was it what they did, how they lived? If Jesus was a man, "adopted" or divinized by God - WHY? Is our hope to be "adopted"? If so, how? Does this "adoption" change the adoptee, perhaps in a "born again" way? (See next thought.)

 

* Was Jesus half man and half Divine, born of a human mother but "fathered" by God, making him different from us, and unique? If so, what does that mean for us? (An idea - Jesus, in this scenario, was born of God's spirit. Human DNA+God's spirit = Jesus Christ. Perhaps this is what Jesus meant by being "born again"? Even though God didn't "beget" us in our mothers' wombs, perhaps God's spirit can "beget" us outstide of the womb and change us?" In this scenario, Jesus is unique in how he was born, but we become like Jesus through being "born again" and adopted.)

 

* Was Jesus God incarnate, making him WAY different from us, and unique? If so, what does that mean for us? Did God choose to come to earth to live as a human and to experience firsthand our problems, without the benefit of omnipotence?

 

All three suppositions have both a positive side and a negative side.

 

Fred - Do you consider all this on topic, part of what it means to be a progressive Christian, or would you like a new thread started?

Edited May 25, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[soma]

I like the idea that Jesus was the man and Christ was the consciousness. He said " I and the Father are One." His consciousness united with the collective consciousness we call God. God is everything.

"One God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all." Ephesians 4:6 BBE

[cunninglily]

There are some things rattling around in my head that I want to try and organize, first for my self, and then, hopefully sufficiently enough to generate some discussion here.

 

Some time back, in the "Matrix" thread, I asked if anyone had heard of or read G. I. Gurdjieff. Since then I've been doing a little exploring and have discovered some very provocative ideas which accord, at least in my mind, with some of the larger implications (which I myself could not quite articulate) of what I have called our Purpose as Mediators, with Christ bridging or mediating both what is "higher" and "lower" in ourselves,and we, as Christ in us, mediating in kind between the "higher" and the whole of creation. Much to my surprise, Gurdieff taught a very similar philosophy or worldview. My only encounter with Gurdjieffian thought has been through one of his students and associates, J.A. Bennett...and this rather idly one day as I was tending shop (Bennett's book was on the used book shelf). I'm always amazed at how strains of thought attract similar strains of thought, or how once you own a Volkswagen you realize that they were everywhere all along. Anyway, I'm going to try to give you guys Gurdieff in five minutes...lol...at least as it pertains to what I've said concerning "mediation".

 

Gurdieff taught that "man is created as an agent of transmission", both cosmically and psychospiritually and this is not meant metaphorically, but quite literally. "Human beings are on earth in order to pass on a special energy in two directions - to nature and to other beings." The higher (God, Spirit, Mind or whathaveyou) exists within us, but it cannot penetrate into our actions until there is present within us the paradoxical I (Adam or the Second Adam/Christ) who bridges (or mediates) the levels within the human organism. Inwardly, microcosmically, the question, "Why is man on earth?" translates, in all seriousness, into the question, "Why isn't man on earth?" In the state of ordinary man (which Gurdieff calls the state of sleep) there is no man within us to bridge the higher and lower in ourselves." Which seems to me another way of saying that "Christ in you is the hope of Glory" and not for your own glory, of course, but to the Glory of the Whole of Creation. The first Adam is a dead man, or no man at all, but a phantom; a sleepwalker. The second Adam is a "servant of the Most High" and so on...

 

Gurdieff even goes on to say that the reason for the population explosion is not hygiene or medicine, but the fact that the quality of mankind has declined to such an extent that it takes more of us to maintain the energy balance needed for the "Cosmos" to function as it was created to function. Wrap your brain around that one. The penetration of the higher into the lower in individual human life is actually seen as part of the process of "world-creation and world-maintenance". Yup, mediation to the nth degree, eh?

 

Gurdjieff makes clear that this "transmission" does not occur by good works, which he likens to applying bandaids to cancers. Ones "understanding" and "being" must become one, or ones being must be sufficient to carry the weight of ones knowledge, so that what one does is what one is. He speaks of "emanations" which I understand in light of the scripture which states that "Jesus spoke as one having authority." The word "authority" shares the same roots or origins as does the word "authentic", which implies in light of this scripture that Jesus spoke authentically, or as one who IS what he says and does. This "emanation" is the special energy that we mediate to nature and to other beings. The emanation of Presence we could say.

 

Gurdjieff evolved a very complex teaching and cosmology complete with praxis, and I can not even pretend to understand him fully. But this particular aspect of his teaching has been pressing in on me for days and I just had to spill it somewhere.

 

Any thoughts?

 

lily

[soma]

To add to your discussion if we identify with the source, our ego is inwardly replaced with pure consciousness, and God becomes outwardly man. Christ said, "Whoever sees me sees the Father." The mind with pure consciousness is a channel for refinement because Christ consciousness has a mission in life and for the world. This mission is to remind the fallen men and women of their original nature and to show them the way through which it may once more be lived or actualized. This awareness or Christ consciousness is the merging of the microcosm with the macrocosm or the unit mind merging with the cosmic mind. So many ways to say the same thing. Peace

[AletheiaRivers]

The first time you mentioned Gurdjieff I meant to chime in and say that, although I haven't read him or Oupenski (sp?), I once had an acquaintance tell me that many of my ideas were similar and that I might enjoy reading both of them. If I remember correctly, he especially recommended Oupenski.

 

I don't know for sure what ideas might be similar however, because this acquaintance and I were also discussing kabbalah at the time and the whole conversation is a jumbled blur.

 

It seems that much of our discussion regarding Gurdjieff centered around "soul making" and that rather than being creatures WITH souls, we are creatures who ARE souls. (Does any of that jive with what you've read? I wish the conversation wasn't so blurry. )

 

I had mentioned that I was having a hard time conceiving of WHY God would put PRE-EXISTENT immortal human spirits/souls (for those out there who interchange the words) into incarnate form for some reason. I think it was this comment that sparked his mentioning Gurdjieff.

 

I've done a small amount of research on both men. Some of what they said is intriguing, some ridiculous (imo), like Gurdjieff's comments about the "moon". However, that doesn't mean both men didn't have some profound philosophical insights.

Edited June 24, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[cunninglily]

The first time you mentioned Gurdjieff I meant to chime in and say that, although I haven't read him or Oupenski (sp?), I once had an acquaintance tell me that many of my ideas were similar and that I might enjoy reading both of them. If I remember correctly, he especially recommended Oupenski.

 

I don't know for sure what ideas might be similar however, because this acquaintance and I were also discussing kabbalah at the time and the whole conversation is a jumbled blur. 

 

It seems that much of our discussion regarding Gurdjieff centered around "soul making" and that rather than being creatures WITH souls, we are creatures who ARE souls. (Does any of that jive with what you've read? I wish the conversation wasn't so blurry.  )

 

I had mentioned that I was having a hard time conceiving of WHY God would put PRE-EXISTENT immortal human spirits/souls (for those out there who interchange the words) into incarnate form for some reason. I think it was this comment that sparked his mentioning Gurdjieff.

 

I've done a small amount of research on both men. Some of what they said is intriguing, some ridiculous (imo), like Gurdjieff's comments about the "moon". However, that doesn't mean both men didn't have some profound philosophical insights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, there are some similarities to what I've read of Gurdjieff and what I know of the Kabbalah. I think that either Gurdjieff or Ouspensky were instrumental in the development of the Enneagram if you've heard of that, but I'm not yet sure in what way...I'll check it out. And yes, the Gurdjieffian "school" which includes Ouspensky, does say some rather fantastic things...such as his comments concerning the moon as well as his reason for overpopulation (I think thats pretty weird, but then life is pretty weird). But apart from the fantastic, it seems to me that Gurdjieff is indicating humanities organic place within the cosmic whole...as Jacob Needleman put it in describing this idea of Gurdjieffs', "human consciousness has a function no less than, say, the atmospheric exchange of chemicals in plant respiration."

 

Again, this is interesting to me now primarily because it takes the idea of mediation out of the metaphorical realm and into organic life, which means that the condition of mankind affects the condition of the whole of creation quite literally to this way of thinking. Gurdjieff, it must be noted at this point, was criticized for advocating and believing in a "superhumanity", and this criticism is not unknown to those who believe that we are destined to become the "sons of God" and "Christs". Gurdjieff also believed that it was only through great effort that any man could realize this nature in himself while at the same time making it clear that no man could do it of himself or by himself.

 

At any rate, I am not advocating the teachings of Gurdjieff so much as wanting to explore the idea that mankind mediates, in somewhat the same way as the trunk of a tree mediates between the watery roots and the sun-drenched leaves to create photosynthesis, between God and creation. And more specifically, that it is for us who are Christian, Christ in us that fulfills this function. And in light of the literalness of Gurdjieffs vision, that Christ is indeed the redeemer of the whole of creation and that the balance of the entire shabang weighs upon Him. In and through us. Word is, "the whole creation groaneth awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God". This has always been a particularly compelling scripture for me and this discovery of the teachings of Gurdjieff seems to approach the telling of something on the tip of my tongue concerning it, if you know what I mean.

 

You know how influences go....how bits and pieces of information or ideas are picked up, here a little, there a little, even "line upon line, precept upon precept", and this one particular thread has been following after me for a while now. I appreciate your patience. I know nothing about Gurdjieff or his teaching apart from the bits and pieces I am slowly garnering through reading, and much of it is over my head quite frankly. I am in that awkward but still not unpleasant state of understanding and not understanding at once.

 

lily

[cunninglily]

To add to your discussion if we identify with the source, our ego is inwardly replaced with pure consciousness, and God becomes outwardly man. Christ said, "Whoever sees me sees the Father." The mind with pure consciousness is a channel for refinement because Christ consciousness has a mission in life and for the world. This mission is to remind the fallen men and women of their original nature and to show them the way through which it may once more be lived or actualized. This awareness or Christ consciousness is the merging of the microcosm with the macrocosm or the unit mind merging with the cosmic mind.  So many ways to say the same thing.  Peace

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes. Many ways to say the same thing. But what strikes me in this teaching is that the "merging of the microcosm with the macrocosm", something which we all have read or heard, becomes something new in its sometimes off-putting concreteness or literalness. I appreciate this because there is always the danger of "knowing all that already" and its good to hear things said in a way that opens the ears to hear again. Thanks for joining in.

 

lily

[AletheiaRivers]

XianAnarchist made a comment in the new thread on Hell a few days ago that made me go "Hmmm." I decided to move the comment here, since it applies.

 

This brings us to the “anger” of God. Let me first state that I do not ascribe to an understanding of the atonement that says that Jesus Christ’s life-blood was drained by God in order to sat the vengeful thirst of an angry God. I believe that such an assertion flies in the face of orthodoxy as established in the council of Nicaea (perhaps another topic).

 

THAT is something I did not know.

 

So what does "orthodoxy as established in the council of Nicaea" teach about atonement?

[irreverance]

So what does "orthodoxy as established in the council of Nicaea" teach about atonement?

Actually, I'd say that the Nicene Creed and the trintarian theology that follows it dosn't say anything specific about atonement. However, there are many implications for the language and its intent. It talks about Christ as being "eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one Being with the Father." So, in simple terms, it is to say that because the Son is fully One with the Father (and the Spirit), there is no time and no place in which the will or actions of one member of the Trinity is in opposition to another.

 

Here's the basic scenario for the blood atonement theory. Humanity has dishonored the father by sinning. In order to make things "right," the Father demands and has effectively decreed the penalty, which is death. The Son, meanwhile, being compassionate steps in to take the blow and heads off the Father's wrath. Effectively, we have two Persons of the Trinity at odds with one another. According to Nicene orthodoxy (which is the measuring stick for anything that can validly be called "orthodoxy"), God cannot have conflicted being or action. So, the blood atonement is in contradiction to Nicene orthodoxy. Which I would argue makes it by definition "unorthodox."

 

Now, having said that, I think that from the lens of pastoral theology, it is a great theory. We humans can identify easily with a conflicted being since we deal with it daily. Let's say, for example, that someone has deeply offended me. On the one hand, I want to smite them, but on the other I want to forgive. What, pray tell, shall I do? What is the most divine/just/holy way to deal with the situation? Well when I look at the cross and the blood atonement theory, I see that God, too, struggles with such things, torn between the smiting and the forgiving. But, God being truly holy, through the Son (who reveals the divine will perfectly) shows us the way, and we know that to forgive is divine, even at great personal cost.

 

So, (perhaps ironically) while the blood atonement theory is technically a perversion of Christian orthodoxy (high theology), it can be truly powerful in helping people to connect with God and to participate in the divine life of the Father/Son/Holy Spirit in the midst of daily life (pastoral or low theology). And since the purpose of theology is really to help us to connect with God, the blood atonement can indeed be considered "true," if not "exclusive."

[BeachOfEden]

This statement of the Creed

 

"begotten not made,"-...

 

Makes no snese to me. If you are begotten are you not also made???

 

 

"Here's the basic scenario for the blood atonement theory. Humanity has dishonored the father by sinning. In order to make things "right," the Father demands and has effectively decreed the penalty, which is death. The Son, meanwhile, being compassionate steps in to take the blow and heads off the Father's wrath."

 

"Effectively, we have two Persons of the Trinity at odds with one another. According to Nicene orthodoxy (which is the measuring stick for anything that can validly be called "orthodoxy"), God cannot have conflicted being or action. So, the blood atonement is in contradiction to Nicene orthodoxy. Which I would argue makes it by definition "unorthodox."

 

These 2 explainations of atonement you gave, are THEE reason, why so many liberals, even including Christians liberals explain why they can NOT stomac a belief in Jesus as Savior..because this would mean they God is unfairly revengful (from their explained point of view...)and that he cruely made his Son Jesus suffer for man's sins. This reasoning is explained in the book, "Leaving the Fold," where the author, a former Calvary Chapel and Assembly of God mebers now a Liberal pretty much says in her own words why she rejects Christianity and Christ.

 

 

Before I add my thopughts on this...I like to hear all your responses/views on this gorunds of reasonings.

[AletheiaRivers]

Actually, I'd say that the Nicene Creed and the trintarian theology that follows it dosn't say anything specific about atonement.

 

Ahhh, I see what you mean. The idea of a wrathful God and a compassionate Son are contradictory and mutually exlusive within the idea of the Trinity.

 

The reason I asked is because I only recently became aware that not all church fathers believed in "original sin" or "atonement". It's my understanding that Eastern Orthodoxy, because of not being as influenced by Augustine as Catholicism was, doesn't really focus on the idea of atonement. It focuses more on the idea of Incarnation.

 

I have to say I resonate much more with the idea that the world and mankind weren't created "perfect" and then later "fell", but that we are a "work in progress" and that we are becoming "divine". I can't hold to all of Iraeneus' (sp?) theology, but I do appreciate that aspect.

 

So, (perhaps ironically) while the blood atonement theory is technically a perversion of Christian orthodoxy (high theology), it can be truly powerful in helping people to connect with God and to participate in the divine life of the Father/Son/Holy Spirit in the midst of daily life (pastoral or low theology).

 

Actually, atonement theory really turns me off Christianity. Always has. The idea of the Incarnation, however, really helps me feel close to God. The idea that God chose to become fully human (as Jesus, as Buddha, as "one of us") .... Sigh.

Edited July 14, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[DCJ]

Here's the basic scenario for the blood atonement theory.  Humanity has dishonored the father by sinning.  In order to make things "right," the Father demands and has effectively decreed the penalty, which is death.  The Son, meanwhile, being compassionate steps in to take the blow and heads off the Father's wrath.  Effectively, we have two Persons of the Trinity at odds with one another.

Xian, I don't see atonement theology as quite the dichotomy that you've presented.. (I don't think historic Christianity would affirm it if it was.) Atonement theology speaks of a covenant made between the persons of the Trinity "before the foundation of the world." The Father willingly sends the Son, and the Son willingly fulfills his mission. There is no discord, only perfect love and unity. Consider Jesus' prayer for his disciples and all future believers:

 

"May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world."

 

The Father and Son are also in perfect agreement concerning the necessity of judgement, evidenced when Jesus says: "The Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him."

 

Actually, atonement theory really turns me off Christianity. Always has. The idea of the Incarnation, however, really helps me feel close to God. The idea that God chose to become fully human

Aletheia, believers in atonement theology also feel close to God, as you said, because "God chose to become fully human." The author of Hebrews expresses it well: "We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses." And yet, he goes on: "but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin." This is the beauty of the atonement, the simple Gospel message.. God not only "dwelt among us," but offered himself in the place of sinners. I don't know what could evoke more love and closeness to God.

[irreverance]

DKC, I haven't forgotten about this. I'm piecing together a lengthy response in my spare time. Sorry about the hang time.

[jerryb]

As I've read and browsed authors (of a liberal bent) that teach a Christianity that has turned Jesus into a very wise and very good man, I get conflicted.

 

The logical, skeptical, brainiac me thinks "I can accept this Jesus. This Jesus, a great man, could have existed. He was a radical Jew attempting to bring reform to his people and his nation. I should follow him, be like him and find meaning in that."

 

But then I wonder "Why bother? There are other figures throughout history, political activists and thinkers, that I am drawn to as well. Is that all Jesus means to me? Is that all Jesus was?"

 

Then I read and browse authors (of a not so liberal bent) that teach Jesus as the son of God or God incarnate, but not in the ways that you might think. These authors (like Yancey, Lewis and McLaren) aren't liberal, but they are not exactly conservative either.

 

The intuitive, receptive, mystical me thinks "I love the idea that God chose to come to Earth in corporeal form to interact with and relate to human beings on our level. Wow! I don't think I can believe that it was to die a sacrificial death for my sins, but I CAN believe that it was to teach humankind the best way to live."

 

However, (imo) this removes Jesus from his Jewish context and who he may have been historically. Does the Bible really teach that Jesus was God incarnate?

 

If Jesus was just a man - Why bother?

 

If Jesus was God incarnate - WOW! - but was he really?

 

I'm coming to find that I'm somewhere in between. Perhaps Jesus was just a man that, by being adopted by God, became divine? I know that the Jewish idea of the messiah or Christ is not this, but perhaps Jesus became "the Christ" not because he was the Jewish messiah, but because he was adopted by God?

 

So yes, I think the divinity of Jesus is very important if Christianity is to survive. I'm just not sure how to go about it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi aletheia,

 

I believe that I am at about the same stage in my search for Jesus that you are.

And I struggle almost daily to make sense of how I'm feeling.

Perhaps that's the real beauty and appeal of christianity,it's mystery.

However....even though I love mystery...my soul craves certainty,and I'm caught in the tension of those two emotions.

Maybe you can share what you've discovered about this in your own spiritual walk.

 

 

Blessings,

 

Jerryb

[BeachOfEden]

Well, that IS why I invented a middle way term that I called Divintarian.

 

1. Unitarian means that one views jesus as NOT God..but not anything more than just a good man and prophet

 

3. Trintarian means Jesus IS God...

 

But, as you pointed out the problem is this only leaves you with '2' choices and NOTHINg to choose inbetween.

 

That IS WHY I invented the 2nd view to fit inbetween the far left and far right...

 

2. Divitarian+ Jesus is NOT God but IS MORE than just a good man and prophet. Jesus is NOT the Incarnation of God...but rather Jesus is the highest reflection of what God's personality.

[flowperson]

Ah yes, finding the in-between spot where it is safe and secure, because we are taught to believe that the in-between spot pleases the most people most of the time. It's why politics flourishes and why Bill Clintron was born.

 

All kidding aside, well, maybe not all. On another thread I observed that Jesus referred to himself consistently and most often as "the son of man", well maybe that was in the third person sort of thing like "Bob Dole". We'll never really know because we weren't there and network anchors cannot interview the authors of the Gospels. But just think deeply about the term and what it seems to imply.

 

In Genesis when the narrator speaks of the dim beginnings of human time upon the earth we are taught that there were angels who were "sons of G-d" and there were also "daughters of men". We are informed that the daughters of men were comely and that the angels went in unto them (biblicalese for SEX) and that they brought forth children who were very violent and who destroyed themselves over time (well it is a myth, but I thought the producers and director of the film, City of Angels, did a wonderful job with the material). And then G-d created The Adam and his helpmate Eve. Some Gnostic believers held that the Apostle Thomas and Adam were one in the same separated by millenia. Adam was also supposedly buried in the cave at Machelpa along with the patriarchs Abraham and Issac (maybe).

 

Also in Genesis are mentioned "the mighty men" who seemed capable of accomplishing anything that they wished in days of yore. So now you have four classes of earthly personas and one class of cosmic beings that are implied in the early days of earth.

 

Let's review: the sons of g-d, the angels or the cosmic ones ( in the Hebrew, "the Elohim") who were both reputedly good and bad; the daughters of men ( implied to have come about through the offices of the mighty men) ; the offspring who destroy themselves because they're violent.; The mighty men, who seem to lurk in the background of all this; and Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Seth who composed the beginning of the human race, the first family (of course Cain destroyed Abel with the jawbone of an ass, and we hear nothing more of Seth, but by deduction, we all came from Adam and Eve through Cain and Seth). Whew!!!!

 

By the way, Sir John Boorman did an excellent film in the 70's about this myth called, Zardoz. I would highly recommend it to you since it featured Sean Connery in his James Bond days, and Charlotte Rampling (really hot !!}, as a scientist lady who falls for Sean, who plays Adam. Really cool stuff!!

 

Then lots of millenia and centuries later along comes this guy who calls himself "son of man". He had such a profound impact upon the existing milieu of humanity that a completely new set of stories were passed down about him, and a new set of beliefs about self-sacrifice and doing only good works was carried forward until today to inspire our collective behavior patterns in the world. Some of us even assumed him to be son of G-d, but he likely didn't believe that of himself.

 

As I said in the other thread it is evident to me that G-d is the most talented and capable genetic engineer in the universe. He/she also posseses the fastest and most effiiciently effective quantum computer in the universe. (A quantum computer, when they are perfected, will make movie special effects seem like child's play in their ability to create and change realities before our eyes).

 

By the way, about fifteen years ago it was predicted at a convention of mechanical engineering professionals that in 25 years fresh, hot pizza would be delivered directly to our homes through the use of quantum devices ( Beam me down Guido! Only ten more years to wait!). And since G-d has the best quantum computer he/she also has the best and only universal time machine. He/she can go anywhere in time and space in spirit and change realities and create beginnings to his/her heart's content.

 

The Greeks believed that G-d created ex-nihilo, or out of nothingness, whereas earthly gods (ie mighty men) were demiurges, who, because they had to dwell in the earth to work their wonders were corrupted in their natures and were not pure spirit like G-d. This implies that their creations were corrupted/corruptible. Really confusing stuff but it really makes for most excellent entertainment. Sorry for all this everyone, but I just had to get it all out of my system.

 

I feel better now, I think.

 

flow....