On modern substitutions for religion

[FireDragon76]

On 1/16/2019 at 11:22 AM, thormas said:

I, speaking as a progressive Christian, don't tie this to fear of no longer existing or not wanting this existence to end. It seems obvious that this existence will end (that was always the case) and no one has any 'earthy' idea what 'continued existence' looks like or consists of - as evidenced in our long ago discussions of all becoming One. I doubt progressive Christians think of this as a carrot; it is simply a 'consequence' of what such a person believes about God/Life. 

 

 

That's a good point.  It's a mistake to think of religion only as about manipulating people to control them (Marx).  That's a very limited perspective, and does not respect the diversity of reasons why people are religious.

[FireDragon76]

On 1/22/2019 at 8:55 PM, PaulS said:

I think those sort of words may have been placed on Jesus' lips by some NT writers.  I think it's pretty convincing that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who believed the coming of the Kingdom was imminent and that the evil powers (Rome) would be overthrown 'in this generation'.  When Jesus got executed and 'this generation' didn't see the coming of the Kingdom, Christians began to 'interpret' Jesus differently and make up new stories about the Kingdom.

Not all Biblical scholars see it that way.  Marcus Borg, for instance , didn't see Jesus having a particularly political message, as if he were in the Zealot camp.  Borg favored a more mystical interpretation of "Kingdom of God", as do many traditional Christians.

Edited July 18, 2019 by FireDragon76

[thormas]

4 hours ago, FireDragon76 said:

Not all Biblical scholars see it that way.  Marcus Borg, for instance , didn't see Jesus having a particularly political message, as if he were in the Zealot camp.  Borg favored a more mystical interpretation of "Kingdom of God", as do many traditional Christians.

But to say Jesus was an Apocalyptic Prophet is not to say he was a Zealot or had a political message. 

It seems most or many (?) biblical scholars see Jesus as an Apocalyptic Prophet. I never considered Borg, w.hom I liked very much, a true biblical scholar and also thought he had a view of Jesus and then found that Jesus in the NT.

[FireDragon76]

16 hours ago, thormas said:

But to say Jesus was an Apocalyptic Prophet is not to say he was a Zealot or had a political message. 

It seems most or many (?) biblical scholars see Jesus as an Apocalyptic Prophet. I never considered Borg, w.hom I liked very much, a true biblical scholar and also thought he had a view of Jesus and then found that Jesus in the NT.

I don't believe apocalyptic prophet and mystic are two different things.  Apocalyptic language is just the way that the Abrahamic traditions use religious symbols to articulate their mysticism.  We are used to thinking of a prophet as someone who prognosticates the future, and I don't believe that captures the whole reality of what a prophet was in Judaism.

[thormas]

7 hours ago, FireDragon76 said:

I don't believe apocalyptic prophet and mystic are two different things.  Apocalyptic language is just the way that the Abrahamic traditions use religious symbols to articulate their mysticism.  We are used to thinking of a prophet as someone who prognosticates the future, and I don't believe that captures the whole reality of what a prophet was in Judaism.

I think they are different but one individual can be both. I also agree with you on prophets. Not sure if apocalyptic language is just the symbolic language of mystics (will have to check on this) as it seems this language and its expectations were taken literally by people like Jesus, his disciples and Paul.

Do I remember correctly that Borg thought of Jesus as a mystic but not an Apocalyptic Prophet?

[FireDragon76]

On 7/19/2019 at 7:23 AM, thormas said:

I think they are different but one individual can be both. I also agree with you on prophets. Not sure if apocalyptic language is just the symbolic language of mystics (will have to check on this) as it seems this language and its expectations were taken literally by people like Jesus, his disciples and Paul.

Do I remember correctly that Borg thought of Jesus as a mystic but not an Apocalyptic Prophet?

I'm not certain, I have only read some of Borg's books.  Borg understands Jesus mysticism as something that may prompt social action, so I am guessing he is not really challenging the apocalyptic aspects of the traditional understanding of Jesus.

N.T. Wright is helpful in understanding the apocalyptic imagery in the Gospels as mysticism.   People like Schweitzer may have accidentally understood it in more concrete terms and may have based some of their conclusions on false assumptions.

Edited July 21, 2019 by FireDragon76

[thormas]

8 hours ago, FireDragon76 said:

I'm not certain, I have only read some of Borg's books.  Borg understands Jesus mysticism as something that may prompt social action, so I am guessing he is not really challenging the apocalyptic aspects of the traditional understanding of Jesus.

N.T. Wright is helpful in understanding the apocalyptic imagery in the Gospels as mysticism.   People like Schweitzer may have accidentally understood it in more concrete terms and may have based some of their conclusions on false assumptions.

Again, I liked Borg but felt he had a view of Jesus (specifically, as you say to encourage social action) then looked for that Jesus in the NT - rather than let the NT speaks for itself.

Which book by Wright, I'm interested in checking it out?

[FireDragon76]

3 hours ago, thormas said:

Again, I liked Borg but felt he had a view of Jesus (specifically, as you say to encourage social action) then looked for that Jesus in the NT - rather than let the NT speaks for itself.

Which book by Wright, I'm interested in checking it out?

This is an article by Tom Wright on Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet and what that imagery actually meant in the first century:

http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/04/04/apocalypse-now/

Schweitzer understood the image of "the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven" literally, and concluded that Jesus was a mistaken apocalyptic prophet, as the space-time universe did not end.   Wright argues that imagery was never meant to be understood literally in the first place by first century Jews.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, FireDragon76 said:

http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/04/04/apocalypse-now/

Thanks, will read.

[JosephM]

I also believe ( from reading the gospels) that imagery was never meant to be understood literally in the first place. I think it is evident in the frequent  use of parables and also Jesus's claim that his words were not his own and that his words were spirit and truth. That which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit  and as Paul later attests to in his 1st letter to the Corinthians when he says in effect .... that the natural man cannot understand because the words must be spiritually discerned.

[FireDragon76]

On 7/21/2019 at 3:26 PM, JosephM said:

I also believe ( from reading the gospels) that imagery was never meant to be understood literally in the first place. I think it is evident in the frequent  use of parables and also Jesus's claim that his words were not his own and that his words were spirit and truth. That which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit  and as Paul later attests to in his 1st letter to the Corinthians when he says in effect .... that the natural man cannot understand because the words must be spiritually discerned.

Watch the Star Trek: the Next Generation episode "Darmok" some time, and you get a clue into this.