Did the historical Jesus exist?

[Thomas]

Part of what I'm saying is the practice and acceptance of unique rituals and one-time miracles as the line of demarcation between Christian and non-Christian is the breeding ground for an us versus them mentality ...

Remember Jesus was the first to set up 'me v you' demarcation between Himself and the Pharisees.

Jesus was by no means an 'anything goes' kind of guy!

That's what defines Christianity, but Thomas wrote it doesn't define Christianity.

Not uniquely. It is the second of two principles. There is a prior principle.

Otherwise that would be tantamount to claiming that only Christianity preaches love of neighbour.

Of course, Thomas has a point when he wrote he doesn't call himself a Buddhist. In one sense I see his point, but in another sense (from the Chrysostom quote above) I'm a follower of Buddha and Christ when I practice the Golden Rule, so I see no contradiction in calling oneself both a Buddhist and a Christian.

Nor do I see any issue in acknowledging Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Native Americanism etc, when speaking in general sociological terms, such as the Golden Rule. But when I'm speaking in the Spiritual or Mystical sense, the 'one thing necessary' (Luke 10:42), then I am Catholic.

 

[wil]

Spong's Jesus ain't no Jesus light in my book...

Taking the words and imaging the implications... turn the other cheek, what you do to the least you do to me, the low will be high and the high will be low, don't worry about where you'll eat or what you'll clothe yourself with...

Attaining these concepts... we are so distant from... These and thoughts like these, to me, and I believe Spong and many others are the meat of Christianity, of reaching our highest good, our highest self, of putting on the mind of Christ...

 

[wil]

Nor do I see any issue in acknowledging Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Native Americanism etc, when speaking in general sociological terms, such as the Golden Rule. But when I'm speaking in the Spiritual or Mystical sense, the 'one thing necessary' (Luke 10:42), then I am Catholic.

Yes Ms Magdalene chose Christ... but if Martha didn't make the preparations...what would they have eaten? It is an interesting road to hoe...

 

[Thomas]

Yes Ms Magdalene chose Christ... but if Martha didn't make the preparations...what would they have eaten? It is an interesting road to hoe...

LOL, you are funny.

 

[wil]

I had read your first post...but not the second... and then after I had posted, I saw the second... and am I wrong that our contemplation was not similar? (worry not what you will eat?)

 

[Thomas]

Spong's Jesus ain't no Jesus light in my book...

Oh, make no mistake, I don't make light of the moral message! For me what is stand-out about Christ is something else altogether. Even atheists allow that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but Spong can't even seem to see that!

The moral message, the Golden Rule etc., presents a serious challenge for the contemporary western liberal: How do you square 'do unto others' without sacrificing all the benefits of a First World consumer culture? It takes some serious footwork to square that circle!

As for the rest, we'll always see things differently.

 

[Ahanu]

In his 'Jesus for the Non-Religious', John Selby Spong offers his own interpretation of the Gospels, and who is the Jesus who emerges from the text?

A Jewish Jesus? Spong's interpretation is an interpretation of an interpretation. The Gospels are paintings of Jesus too. Oral traditions are malleable, changing in relationship to the ongoing circumstances of the community. In short, it's a mixture of history and interpretation.

For example, unlike Luke's Jesus, who he has say "No spirit has flesh and bones as you see me having," Paul's Jesus is different in his writings: we find "Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God" and "the last Adam became a life-giving spirit" (1 Corinthians 15.50; 15.45). Apologists, such as William Craig, have tried to square this circle, to harmonize the contradiction.

Because here is a Jesus who's mission was simply one of social inclusion, of benevolence and and compassion. In short, a Jesus we can think of in much the same way we like to think of ourselves. A Jesus who exemplifies the best Western liberal moral values of tolerance and inclusiveness. It's not so much that we learn a unique moral stance from the examples of Jesus, rather that we learn that Jesus was committed to the same values as we are ... what Spong does is take those cherished (and self-evident) Western ideals and retro-works the text to provide them with a theological justification, in short, Christianity becomes a modern Western ideology. He's no different from any 'good guy' you care to name ... Gandhi, Kahlil Gibran, Paulo Coelho ...

In short, Bishop Spong’s Jesus is in no way unique, He's a Jesus who sits neatly 'in the box' of our pre-conceptions.

Ok. I'll think about it.

Christ was first and foremost ordered towards 'the Spirit' (upper-case S – God), whereas today that element is retreating from consciousness, and people see Christianity as ordered towards 'the spirit' (lower case 's' – the self). People today conflate 'spirit' with their own intellectual and creative capacity ... it's an interesting psychological argument that the Orthodox make more of than the Latins, although of course Pope-Emeritus Benedict XVI was outspoken against the 'Philosophy of Relativism' and its dangerous flaws long before those flaws began to be recognised by social commentators in the socio-political sphere.

I'll consider it.

Having said that, let me start ... I think the Western notion of 'the person', the integral human being, although like everything else is founded on Hebraic Scripture and belief, is today a Christian concept unique in its scope, range and dimension. This is too often and too easily overlooked, and nowhere moreso than when Westerners do not factor this properly in their interpretation of doctrines like Hinduism and Buddhism, and this leads to fundamental misconceptions of the latter traditions (I've discussed this elsewhere, but no-one picks up on it).

This is an interesting topic. I'll take a look at it.

 

[Ahanu]

Having said that, let me start ... I think the Western notion of 'the person', the integral human being, although like everything else is founded on Hebraic Scripture and belief, is today a Christian concept unique in its scope, range and dimension. This is too often and too easily overlooked, and nowhere moreso than when Westerners do not factor this properly in their interpretation of doctrines like Hinduism and Buddhism, and this leads to fundamental misconceptions of the latter traditions (I've discussed this elsewhere, but no-one picks up on it).

Hi Thomas,

You said you've discussed this before. Can you provide a link to the thread? Thanks. I'm rereading David Hart's Atheist Delusions, and it discusses the emergence of the idea of giving a face to the faceless in early Christianity.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ahanu –

You said you've discussed this before. Can you provide a link to the thread?

Oh my ... way back!

D'you know, I've never worked out how to link to other threads/posts here!

It's under Comparative Studies in the Theology Board.

There's a really old discussion called 'The Human Person' (near the bottom of the list) and another called Christian Anthropology.

Good luck with Hart!

 

[EdgyDolmen]

The Human Person maybe http://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/10583/