Who Was Jesus?

[Totenkindly]

I don't know if I agree with that...

Oh -- you're mocking me now, aren't you!?

I imagine there are many ways to skin a cat here, so to speak. I'm sure my "say absolutely nothing with any degree of certitude" approach is equally maddening to some and proportionally not-maddening to others.

You know, for a supposed J, you are sooooooo P sometimes. (Or maybe it's just Ni. What was your Ni function strength again?)

I know I was being somewhat overblown. I was hoping Obie would respond to the poke and share something personal, but I suppose I was far too transparent in my intentions...

I am seriously interested in the "core incidents/points" that particular people choose to stake their soul on a particular faith POV.

 

[Oberon]

It sounds like you should give up witnessing. Sharing your reasoning and story is rather essential to passing on the spark, isn't it?

Are you having a bad day, Jen?

It appears as though I'm irritating you, though I'm uncertain whether it's only me or just everything.

 

[Totenkindly]

Are you having a bad day, Jen? It appears as though I'm irritating you, though I'm uncertain whether it's only me or just everything.

No, I'm having a good day.

You just happened to do something that does irritate me regardless of who does it: When I ask a question, they say, "Oh, you don't really want to know the answer and nothing I say will please you, so I won't even make an effort."

Where, as I said, in honesty, I want to know what the "definitive points" are. Now (1) I'm left wondering whether any truly exist and (2) I feel blown off and not taken seriously.

Note that I do take your opinions seriously (a compliment to you), if I care so much about why you've chosen to believe a certain thing. If I thought you were an imbecile, with no foundation for anything, I would not waste my time asking.

 

[Oberon]

No, I'm having a good day.

You just happened to do something that does irritate me regardless of who does it: When I ask a question, they say, "Oh, you don't really want to know the answer and nothing I say will please you, so I won't even make an effort."

Where, as I said, in honesty, I want to know what the "definitive points" are. Now (1) I'm left wondering whether any truly exist and (2) I feel blown off and not taken seriously.

Note that I do take your opinions seriously (a compliment to you), if I care so much about why you've chosen to believe a certain thing. If I thought you were an imbecile, with no foundation for anything, I would not waste my time asking.

Okay, I'll spell it out for you: I'm not sure I really want to.

My earlier post was drawn from objective sources, though from it I drew subjective conclusions. I posted it as evidence, not proof. You're free to disagree with it. Tear it apart if you like...and so you did.

However, I'm not sure I'm willing to put my heart and soul up on this board to be deconstructed.

 

[Ivy]

Okay, I'll spell it out for you: I'm not sure I really want to.

My earlier post was drawn from objective sources, though from it I drew subjective conclusions. I posted it as evidence, not proof. You're free to disagree with it. Tear it apart if you like...and so you did.

However, I'm not sure I'm willing to put my heart and soul up on this board to be deconstructed.

This is why my husband says he no longer posts/PMs about his beliefs. If it were a matter of completely logical and impersonal conclusions, he would welcome the critique, but since it's so tightly braided with his deepest and rawest self, it's like removing his skin and putting his insides up for inspection.

I guess I can do it, to a degree anyway, because my deeply-held beliefs typically center around avoiding certainty and I can't articulate the more personal aspects anyway, so they don't tend to see light very often.

 

[Totenkindly]

Okay, I'll spell it out for you: I'm not sure I really want to.

My earlier post was drawn from objective sources, though from it I drew subjective conclusions. I posted it as evidence, not proof. You're free to disagree with it. Tear it apart if you like...and so you did.

However, I'm not sure I'm willing to put my heart and soul up on this board to be deconstructed.

All right. I can accept that, then.
(You could.... PM me? )

I guess I can do it, to a degree anyway, because my deeply-held beliefs typically center around avoiding certainty and I can't articulate the more personal aspects anyway, so they don't tend to see light very often.

Sigh. Maybe that is it for me too -- my deepest held convictions are, well, ambiguous. So I can flex with anyone... or against them.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Okay, I'll spell it out for you: I'm not sure I really want to.

My earlier post was drawn from objective sources, though from it I drew subjective conclusions. I posted it as evidence, not proof. You're free to disagree with it. Tear it apart if you like...and so you did.

However, I'm not sure I'm willing to put my heart and soul up on this board to be deconstructed.

Posting about such things before a group of NT's is somewhat akin to "casting pearls before swine". Highly analytical swine.

 

[Totenkindly]

Posting about such things before a group of NT's is somewhat akin to "casting pearls before swine". Highly analytical swine.

Hmmm that reminds me -- Where's Nat?

(I'm referring to the Flying Pigs... not to her!)

 

[Sahara]

I'm just not sure wether he lived, or wether he was what is written about him, or some image conjured up from previous religions that also feature mother and baby god connections, so I have no idea what I think of the man, not with so many different things to believe in/consider.

A P trying to make a decision.

 

[lastrailway]

For me, the point is not whether did he exist or not, or whether was he the son of God or not. What the scriptures count about Christ, the way he is presented, his actions, way of thinking, his character, etc. for me, might this be true, tale, or whatever, there is a person there described as very progressive in a conservative society, who stood up for himself and his opinion. Somebody who offered different and innovative point of view (given the era and society he lived in), and who said things that one can consider them and extract interesting conclusions. And in that lays the value of his teaching.

 

[celesul]

I think Jesus was a random idealistic scholar and good speaker. I don't think he was divine in any way either, but I don't beleive in any sort of deity.

It is also interesting to note that YHWH (the Old Testament Name for God) translates into "Jesus" in Greek (with "Yeshua" tying them together, since I believe "Jesus" is actually an English translated Name).

YHVH doesn't translate. Actually, a lot of Hebrew words have been mistranslated and really change the meaning of the text (the most famous resulting in horns. )

 

[JivinJeffJones]

I don't know if I agree with that... I imagine there are many ways to skin a cat here, so to speak. I'm sure my "say absolutely nothing with any degree of certitude" approach is equally maddening to some and proportionally not-maddening to others.

Yes. Yes it is. To be honest, I'm still trying to figure out if the religion you seem to evince is actually a religion or is merely a reluctance to burn the bridges of a Christian upbringing and commit fully to secular humanism. Obviously you haven't made a full confession of faith here, but what you have said doesn't appear to be a form of Christianity which would have been recognized as such by any segment of the Church I can think of down through history. I'm not sure what your understanding of faith and unbelief are in religion, but I'd be interested to hear it. Maybe I've misunderstood what you've written?

 

[Ivy]

Yes. Yes it is. To be honest, I'm still trying to figure out if the religion you seem to evince is actually a religion or is merely a reluctance to burn the bridges of a Christian upbringing and commit fully to secular humanism. Obviously you haven't made a full confession of faith here, but what you have said doesn't appear to be a form of Christianity which would have been recognized as such by any segment of the Church I can think of down through history. I'm not sure what your understanding of faith and unbelief are in religion, but I'd be interested to hear it. Maybe I've misunderstood what you've written?

*shrug* it seems to be accepted by the Quaker organizations I've been involved with, and to a lesser extent the Episcopals. Certainly there are a heaping boatload of people who believe similarly to me in at least the Episcopal church. To say nothing of the Unitarian Universalists! (Their worship style involves a bit too much hippie drumming for my tastes.) But to be frank, I am not all that concerned about my beliefs and my eccentric form of universalist Christianity being recognized by an organization.

Edited to add: in a way, my beliefs are a response to a Christian upbringing which I did shake for a significant period of time. I grew up surrounded by people who were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that God wanted me to wear only dresses and skirts and never cut my hair. They were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of a lot of crazy bullshit. I've come to be very suspicious of certainty in nearly all its forms, and especially when it comes to matters of faith where, let's face it, there is no way to prove anything.

 

[Totenkindly]

YHVH doesn't translate. Actually, a lot of Hebrew words have been mistranslated and really change the meaning of the text (the most famous resulting in horns. )

Yes. Joshua = Yeshua = Jesus, but YHVH does not translate at all. I think in the King James they resolved it by referring to YHVH as "THE LORD" in small caps in the text.

And satan = adversary and was often used in a generic sense. Satan in the book of Job was more like a trial lawyer, rather than an agent of evil; but then in the NT, suddenly we get demons and devils and "satan" attached to the beast in Revelation among other things.

*shrug* it seems to be accepted by the Quaker organizations I've been involved with, and to a lesser extent the Episcopals. Certainly there are a heaping boatload of people who believe similarly to me in at least the Episcopal church. To say nothing of the Unitarian Universalists! (Their worship style involves a bit too much hippie drumming for my tastes.)

Poor Ivy. Now you're definitely going to hell.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

But to be frank, I am not all that concerned about my beliefs and my eccentric form of universalist Christianity being recognized by an organization.

It's a nice idea, but it's not Christianity is all I'm saying.

Edited to add: in a way, my beliefs are a response to a Christian upbringing which I did shake for a significant period of time. I grew up surrounded by people who were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that God wanted me to wear only dresses and skirts and never cut my hair. They were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of a lot of crazy bullshit. I've come to be very suspicious of certainty in nearly all its forms, and especially when it comes to matters of faith where, let's face it, there is no way to prove anything.

Baby/bathwater/God-builds-a-church-devil-builds-a-chapel/blahblah/etc etc. Sounds to me like you're in danger of shaping your theology around other people's defeats, which is understandable but dangerous. Sure, there's no way to prove faith. But faith still has to have some faith behind it if it's to be faith which is acceptable to the God represented in the bible we have today. What's the difference between faith and unbelief for you? Do you believe in unbelief? I guess I just don't understand your position. We have a lot of pluralists in Australia, but they usually (when pressed) profess the view that all religions are equally valid (so long as they don't instigate violence or proselytism) because they are all equally ridiculous. Thus it's never struck me as being a genuine position of faith. At best, it seems more a position of despair.

 

[Ivy]

It's a nice idea, but it's not Christianity is all I'm saying.

and who appointed you the Christianity police?

Baby/bathwater/God-builds-a-church-devil-builds-a-chapel/blahblah/etc etc. Sounds to me like you're in danger of shaping your theology around other people's defeats, which is understandable but dangerous.

That's what I was doing when I rejected faith altogether because of their craziness. But then I did realize that it was fallacious of me to do that.

Sure, there's no way to prove faith. But faith still has to have some faith behind it if it's to be faith which is acceptable to the God represented in the bible we have today. What's the difference between faith and unbelief for you? Do you believe in unbelief? I guess I just don't understand your position. We have a lot of pluralists in Australia, but they usually (when pressed) profess the view that all religions are equally valid (so long as they don't instigate violence or proselytism) because they are all equally ridiculous. Thus it's never struck me as being a genuine position of faith. At best, it seems more a position of despair.

I guess what I'm doing is creating a partition between belief and knowledge. I don't KNOW any of this shit. I do have some beliefs, albeit fairly general and inclusive ones which I don't really intend to lay out here. And believe me, I'm accustomed to being called a heretic for it.

 

[JivinJeffJones]

and who appointed you the Christianity police?

Point taken, but if someone says they are slightly convinced that Jesus was a blueberry popsicle consumed by a family of migrating wildebeest then I am not allowed to state as fact that such a belief is not consistent with Christianity?

And believe me, I'm accustomed to being called a heretic for it.

Just as long as you are willing to consider the possibility that you may in fact, at this point in time, be a heretic. From what I've read, you certainly would be considered such by the authors of all the books of the bible, as well as Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Wesley and CS Lewis to name a few. Uncertainty is natural, but I don't think it's a place to set up camp. I'm of the opinion that faith in man's ability to get it wrong must at some point cross over into unbelief in God's ability to communicate.

 

[Ivy]

Just as long as you are willing to consider the possibility that you may in fact, at this point in time, be a heretic. From what I've read, you certainly would be considered such by the authors of all the books of the bible, as well as Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Wesley and CS Lewis to name a few. Uncertainty is natural, but I don't think it's a place to set up camp. I'm of the opinion that faith in man's ability to get it wrong must at some point cross over into unbelief in God's ability to communicate.

Sure, I'm okay with all of that. If the definition of heretic is someone who holds beliefs contrary to the canonized beliefs of the mainstream church, then I guess I am one. So is Bishop Spong, in the eyes of many. And so is our priest, along with half or greater of the Anglican community in the United States, for backing a gay bishop and blessing gay unions.

About uncertainty: I really don't see how anyone can be sure of any of this. This doesn't mean they don't believe. I don't think belief requires certainty. It happens on another wavelength entirely from knowledge, IMO, and I think most theological folly comes from mixing the two. I have a very strong hunch, coming from the gutsal area (not the headal area) that there is a divine something, and that Christ was tapped into it, and that through Christ we can tap into it. How is it anything but reasonable to acknowledge that I have no proof for any of this, and so I can't mark it down in the "knowledge" column?

 

[Totenkindly]

From what I've read, you certainly would be considered such by the authors of all the books of the bible, as well as Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Wesley and CS Lewis to name a few.

lol, CS Lewis would be considered a heretic in some ways if evangelicals actually paid attention to what he actually believed, rather than just venerating at the altar of his intellect. And Luther was thrown out of the Catholic church for his beliefs. Augustine fell back into a life of sin in his later age. And so forth.

Not that it matters. I just find it raises that interesting question of, "Who or what exactly is the authority that determines who is in and who is out?"

 

[JivinJeffJones]

About uncertainty: I really don't see how anyone can be sure of any of this. This doesn't mean they don't believe. I don't think belief requires certainty.

I think you can believe without being certain, but I don't think you can fully believe without being certain. Take Hebrews 11:1 for instance: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

And the people whose faith Jesus commended were those who acted as though their faith were certainty, not fond, uncertain hope.

It happens on another wavelength entirely from knowledge, IMO, and I think most theological folly comes from mixing the two.

Even if "most theological folly" comes from mixing the two, does that mean it is wrong to do so? Is that a logical conclusion? Some would argue that most miracles today come from mixing the two. It would be difficult to argue that the apostles kept the two separate.

How is it anything but reasonable to acknowledge that I have no proof for any of this, and so I can't mark it down in the "knowledge" column?

It's perfectly reasonable. It just shouldn't affect your theology or your actions imo. Not that it would matter (from your perspective) in the long run if it affected your actions, universalist that you are.

lol, CS Lewis would be considered a heretic in some ways if evangelicals actually paid attention to what he actually believed, rather than just venerating at the altar of his intellect.

Well, I guess it depends on what we mean by "heretic". I doubt any Christian could honestly claim to be free of some form of heresy if we are defining heresy as any heterodox doctrinal position or, more simply, wrong understanding of God. Personally, when I speak of heresy I'm referring specifically to a doctrinal position which opposes a salvific understanding of the gospel (wow, can of worms there). And I'm aware that Clive believed in some form of purgatory, which many Christians do not. Does a belief in purgatory preclude a salvific understanding of the gospel? I haven't read his teachings on the subject, but I doubt it. And this does not change the fact that, from what I've read, he would consider theistic agnosticism to be non-Christian if not actually anti-Christian.

And Luther was thrown out of the Catholic church for his beliefs.

He did, by appealing to earlier tradition, notably Augustine. It's no secret that the Catholic church was a hell of a moral mess during Luther's day. I'd be curious to know what earlier tradition Ivy's influential theologians would be appealing to.

Augustine fell back into a life of sin in his later age.

So? What difference does that make? Looks like an ad hominem argument to me.

Not that it matters. I just find it raises that interesting question of, "Who or what exactly is the authority that determines who is in and who is out?"

If you are saying that no one person should be authoritative in defining Christianity (aside from Jesus) then I will agree with you. However, if your conclusion from that is that you can safely ignore all Christian tradition on any subject which you don't agree with then I think you are treading very dangerous ground. All of those men had some whacky ideas imo (for what that's worth). But if all of them were united in opposition to a certain understanding of God, then that wouldn't be something to take lightly. Of course, don't just take my word on it that they would be opposed to this strange pluralistic universalism Ivy seems to be espousing. Read them yourself.