mystictrek Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I wrote: "I understand that the great Karl Barth was asked by someone in an American audience to state his theology in a sentence. He started singing: "Jesus loves me This I know For the Bible Tells me so ... " It's that simple. It's that profound. It's that fantastic. It's Good News. (I guess I will always be a preacher!) / The churches associated with the RR have learned to sing this song anew with drums and keyboards and guitars. Why can't we do that?" Des wrote: "Maybe I am analyzing this too but.. I don't know if it's just me, but I really don't like that hymn/song very well (nice tune and all) but it annoys me. It is in the Jesus=God idea. The only way Jesus can actually love you is for him to be here in the physical sense (since I see Jesus as a person), which he isn't. So it stands to reason the only reason that he would actually love you is for Jesus to be God. / I also have a bit of a problem with Amazing Grace which I think is quite beautiful as music goes. There are maybe a zillion verses and one of them goes "we've been here 10,000 years (humankind).." well that all goes with the fundamentalist view of the humans existence for 10,000 years. Then there is the major problem with it of "saved a wretch like me". Well the guy who wrote it was a slave trader, nice of him to say. :-) / Gosh sorry for my ranting. I understand that if you want to work as clergy in a nursing home you absolutely MUST know Jesus loves me. And as I think I think Amazing Grace is very beautiful as music and sometimes the words aren't that important I think." +++ I think you missed my point. I am advocating that Progressive Christians can claim Jesus language since we understand that Jesus lives in a metaphorical and sacramental sense (Borg). I believe Barth was saying that the Bible is a great source of wisdom teaching grace upon grace, unconditional love, shared and sustainable abundance and other great ideas and practices. Let's teach the world what Jesus language really means. God is Love! A special human being named Jesus revealed this truth like no other. Or can you name others? He lives! Gosh! Am I becoming a Born Again Christian? Borg says that we need to reclaim that metaphor too. It's a major principle of mysticism, the perennial theology. READ > http://members.tripod.com/~parvati/perennial.html & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_Philosophy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 I agree with the statements re: the Gospel of John. Research has shown that it presents the more mystical portions of the Jesus stories, and is written from the viewpoint that is probably most closely related to Jewish beliefs of the time as regards the life of Jesus, the incarnation of G-d, and fulfillment of the OT prophecies regarding all this. Is it any wonder that Progressives identify most closely with this cannon Gospel ? flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darby Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Is it any wonder that Progressives identify most closely with this cannon Gospel ? Flow- This statement surprises me a little. I could have sworn that a few months ago in one topic or another many on the board said the exact opposite. I thought (could be wrong) that most said they preferred Matthew or Mark, but specifically not John. I would assume many here would have trouble with most of chapter 3, which ends, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." There are many other such statements throughtout this entire book (John 14:6--I am the way...) that I would think might cause this gospel to be the Least appealing to many here. Also, at the time, I think many pointed out that Jesus seems to refer to Himself as equal to God more in this gospel than the others. Just curious about this, and FWIW, fow, I love this gospel as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Perhaps I over-generalized, but the statements in the thread that I posted in here seemed to lean towards a preference for John. I didn't mean to diminish the importance of the other books though. IMO there is a general longing among progressives for newer interpretations to the stories of Jesus that make more sense to them in light of the world they live in. My belief is that progressives are searching for novelty, not for degrees of satisfaction with what has seemed to always be. Hence, the importance of questioning in our quest. It could be that John meets more of these novelty wishes since its content meshes with the mystical and dualistic tendencies of today's world more than the others IMO, but then we're both splitting hairs on this one. I don't believe the authors of the Synoptic Gospels had nanotechnology in mind while writing the stories, but then I could be wrong about that. flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AletheiaRivers Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 (edited) Is it any wonder that Progressives identify most closely with this cannon Gospel ? Flow- This statement surprises me a little. I could have sworn that a few months ago in one topic or another many on the board said the exact opposite. I thought (could be wrong) that most said they preferred Matthew or Mark, but specifically not John. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually Flows statement (Hi Flow!) threw me a bit too. I wouldn't be surprised that it's flow's favorite (mystical as you are). I can think of a couple of others who might feel the same way, but by and large it's been my experience that PCers don't like John. would assume many here would have trouble with most of chapter 3, which ends, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." There are many other such statements throughtout this entire book (John 14:6--I am the way...) that I would think might cause this gospel to be the Least appealing to many here. I think it depends on how those verses are interpreted. Generally they are used to "prove" exclusivism. However, there are those that feel that such an interpretation, in light of other verses that point to God's love and the desire to save all men, is incorrect. Edited March 2, 2006 by AletheiaRivers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOW Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Speaking for myself I prefer Luke and Thomas. The Gospel of John is more poetic but I feel it is more a mythological than historical document. I do like it's gentle rebuking of people who take things literally ( i.e. Nicodemus wondering if he had to go back into his mother's womb to be"born again", or the women at the well wondering where Jesus' bucket was to get "living water". The Gospel of John does not mention the Last Supper , but has Jesus washing his disciples feet instead. Several UMC and UCC churches in my area have instituted foot washing, instead of or including communion. The minister or pastor washes the members feet during Holy Week(you can keep your socks on if you want ). Has anyone here participated in a foot washing ceremony? I haven't , but hear its very moving. MOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 I find Matthew to be the most appealing... how about everybody else??? I've read that the Nicodemus thing is an add-on since it works in the Greek, but wasn't originally written in Greek??? And, gotta ask , how the H%% do you wash someone's feet if they have socks on????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJ Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 would assume many here would have trouble with most of chapter 3, which ends, "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." There are many other such statements throughtout this entire book (John 14:6--I am the way...) that I would think might cause this gospel to be the Least appealing to many here. I think it depends on how those verses are interpreted. Generally they are used to "prove" exclusivism. However, there are those that feel that such an interpretation, in light of other verses that point to God's love and the desire to save all men, is incorrect. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Those two positions (Jesus as the only way vs. God's love for all) do appear to be irreconcilable, but the biblical authors oftentimes eloquently describe a way to harmonize them. Consider John again, echoing his famous "John 3:16": This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Or Paul: This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles. They seem to be echoing the same basic message: that humanity has a "disease", but God lovingly sent the only One who could cure it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Depends on the topic. John and Luke more strongly illustrate Jesus' message of equality for women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOW Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 I find Matthew to be the most appealing... how about everybody else??? I've read that the Nicodemus thing is an add-on since it works in the Greek, but wasn't originally written in Greek??? And, gotta ask , how the H%% do you wash someone's feet if they have socks on????? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good point Cynthia. I think some people are uncomfortable with someone touching their naked feet ,so the UMC offers this option. As Mr Costanza told Elaine in Seinfeld ,"no one is touching my feet . I think I have a foot odor problem." On a more serious note, I believe Jesus was unique in this. No other world teacher washed his disciples feet ,as far as I know ( you can correct me if I am wrong). MOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 There are foot washing rituals carried on at the highest levels of the roman church. As I mentioned on another thread sometime ago, this might stem from ancient beliefs that demonic or underworld spiritual influences enter humans through their feet, especially so when it comes to their effects upon women. So there is some substance behind the act. flow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I didn't mean to cast aspercions on the act! I think it is very meaningful... feet in the ancient Mid East were dirty, dusty, and nasty... I have read much about it being unthinkable to wash someone's feet unless you were a very lowly servant. That Jesus would think nothing of it is very meaningful to me. As for socks, that just struck me as funny. On another level, it is disturbing that people would be uncomfortable... how metaphorical... don't look at my dirty feet/soul..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.