Doubts in Jesus as universal redemption

[Maniel]

This isn't about me as much, but a friend of mine. She revealed her thoughts, coming from a Christian upbringing, going to church, she met a new person in the faith who asked a lot of questions. She then found out, that she wasn't actually sure if she believed in the good news of the Bible.
It feels more like a fairy tale story with some symbols she feels, and that it seems naive that one historic event in a small geographic location in history could be the saving act of God for all humanity. She's worried about Muslims, the Hindus etc. But she also sees great value in the faith, but has a hard time accepting it as The Truth, and finds it a bit silly it sounds like.

I get where she is coming from, as someone who had felt the same at some points.

How do you guys deal with these questions to someone who in uncertain?

Much could be said as to why I believe, but would love to hear your thoughts on how you would approach someone like that, and perhaps what convinced you?

 

[All Becomes New]

Doubts are perfectly fine and normal but you do not want to stay there. The bottom line, is if Christ rose from the dead, Christianity is true, period.

 

[Maniel]

In such a conversation you would try and convince the other person about the historical evidence, so it becomes sort of a logical and reasonable claim that is undeniable?

How would you talk into the feeling another person can have, that it seems unfair for people in other parts of the world that their upbringing is false, why God would seem so hidden in a way?

Would the way Paul talk be the way? Trying to explain that people who haven't heard about Jesus, but still has the fruit can be saved.

I agree with doubts, they can be good motivators to seek deeper into truth. As Keller said, doubt is faith seeking answers.

We were out finding mushrooms, and she wasn't sure what we were looking for, if she could even spot the mushrooms in all the leaves. But soon she had the experience of pattern recognition. So I tried that windows, in saying that God may be communicating through events using symbolism, patterns that we can pick up and understand. I didn't get to say this, but that his like a pedagogue, a poet who is writing history, and thus made a story of the deepest love, sacrificing himself for all humanity.

Anyway, if you have more examples on meeting a person in doubt about these things, I would love to hear it

 

[All Becomes New]

@Maniel, you are asking some heavy questions.

How would you talk into the feeling another person can have, that it seems unfair for people in other parts of the world that their upbringing is false, why God would seem so hidden in a way?

This is two separate issues. First, the issue is fairly easy on an intellectual level: God is always just in all His judgments.

For the second, it sounds like the problem of divine hiddenness. This has turned many away from the faith. I would start here:

Would the way Paul talk be the way? Trying to explain that people who haven't heard about Jesus, but still has the fruit can be saved.

This is a highly controversial topic. The question is, "Can someone who never professes faith in Christ be saved?" And it has many nuances. For the answer in the affirmative (not my own personal view, BTW) I would point you to this:

Anyway, if you have more examples on meeting a person in doubt about these things, I would love to hear it

I would point you here, finally (playlist):

 

[Diamond72]

How do you guys deal with these questions to someone who in uncertain?

Usually people have a need and God has the only solution and answer for them. You just need to build up their faith in what God can do so they can get what they want and need. Even the power of positive thinking works. How much more if there really is the power of God that goes beyond what we can do without Him.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If we examine all the religions outside of Christianity, we see that in them one has to improve themselves to a higher state through a number of stages. It has to do with how good a person can become. But with Christianity, which is the only one, a person starts with knowing that they are a helpless sinner deserving of hell, and no matter how good the person can become, his state doesn't change. He is still deserving of hell. Quite different from the other religions, Jesus was executed as a common criminal. This is why the Jews were offended, because their Messiah should not have been crucified by the Romans, and the Greeks thought it was stupidity that the Christian God should be killed as a common criminal. No other religion has its god or gods killed that way. Also Jesus is the only one who suffered and died to take the penalty for our sins. None of the other religious gods ever did that. Even the pseudo-christian cults, although treating Jesus as a loving martyr, do not teach that Jesus took the penalty for our sins and gave us His righteousness as a free gift. This is what sets Christianity apart from every other religion.

So, God came down to us as a human being, showed us His nature and character, and then suffered and died on the Cross to take the penalty for our sins, and then rose from the dead to show us that one day we will rise from the dead to be with Him. Christianity is the only one where a believer can say, "By grace I am saved through faith, not of myself, it is the gift of God, not through works lest any should boast."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This isn't about me as much, but a friend of mine. She revealed her thoughts, coming from a Christian upbringing, going to church, she met a new person in the faith who asked a lot of questions. She then found out, that she wasn't actually sure if she believed in the good news of the Bible.
It feels more like a fairy tale story with some symbols she feels, and that it seems naive that one historic event in a small geographic location in history could be the saving act of God for all humanity. She's worried about Muslims, the Hindus etc. But she also sees great value in the faith, but has a hard time accepting it as The Truth, and finds it a bit silly it sounds like.

I get where she is coming from, as someone who had felt the same at some points.

How do you guys deal with these questions to someone who in uncertain?

Much could be said as to why I believe, but would love to hear your thoughts on how you would approach someone like that, and perhaps what convinced you?

Doubts are common. She should take some solace in knowing that Christians of all kinds frequently have them. However, whether Christianity is true or not doesn't reside upon a simple notion that it "feels too small of a story" to be true. The size of an account or story doesn't matter where historical truth is a concerned.

She also doesn't need to be overly worried about Muslims and Hindus, other than the fact that those folks are more or less stuck in religions that have ahistorical notions which run up against the truths of Christianity. Personally, as a philosopher who studies Historiography and the Philosophy of History, I don't hold much respect for metaphysical or religious beliefs that are ahistorical in nature. I'd suggest she apply herself to at least some moderate study to challenge her doubts.

 

[FireDragon76]

That's normal as a person matures and grows as a human being. There is nothing wrong with your friend. It's going from milk to meat, so to speak. Only Fundamentalists believe that people should all have the exact same attitudes towards religion, one as simplistic as their own.

 

[FireDragon76]

If we examine all the religions outside of Christianity, we see that in them one has to improve themselves to a higher state through a number of stages.

This isn't really true. I know of plenty of religions that teach nothing of the sort. Christians do no favors by saying ridiculous things like this, that are so obviously untrue.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This isn't really true. I know of plenty of religions that teach nothing of the sort. Christians do no favors by saying ridiculous things like this, that are so obviously untrue.

Which of the other religions has a god who came to earth as a human being, healed the sick and cast out demons, walked on water, and calmed a storm, and then died a criminal's death to take the penalty for our sins and after three days rose from the dead to show that He has power over death and hell?

 

[FireDragon76]

Which of the other religions has a god who came to earth as a human being, healed the sick and cast out demons, walked on water, and calmed a storm, and then died a criminal's death to take the penalty for our sins and after three days rose from the dead to show that He has power over death and hell?

You're shifting the goalposts now, a kind of motte-and-bailey tactic. Your original claim was that all other religions teach that you must earn a state of blessedness in the afterlife, or something to that effect. I know for a fact that is false.

The details of Jesus life are debatable, even from a mainstream Christian point of view there is far from a scholarly consensus, especially on the details pertinent to Christians. So some religions either don't find those details persuasive, or they have different ways of interpreting them.

 

[Maniel]

@Maniel, you are asking some heavy questions.



This is two separate issues. First, the issue is fairly easy on an intellectual level: God is always just in all His judgments.

For the second, it sounds like the problem of divine hiddenness. This has turned many away from the faith. I would start here:

This is a highly controversial topic. The question is, "Can someone who never professes faith in Christ be saved?" And it has many nuances. For the answer in the affirmative (not my own personal view, BTW) I would point you to this:

I would point you here, finally (playlist):

Thank you for these, Gary is always good to watch so will give it a listen

If we examine all the religions outside of Christianity, we see that in them one has to improve themselves to a higher state through a number of stages. It has to do with how good a person can become. But with Christianity, which is the only one, a person starts with knowing that they are a helpless sinner deserving of hell, and no matter how good the person can become, his state doesn't change. He is still deserving of hell. Quite different from the other religions, Jesus was executed as a common criminal. This is why the Jews were offended, because their Messiah should not have been crucified by the Romans, and the Greeks thought it was stupidity that the Christian God should be killed as a common criminal. No other religion has its god or gods killed that way. Also Jesus is the only one who suffered and died to take the penalty for our sins. None of the other religious gods ever did that. Even the pseudo-christian cults, although treating Jesus as a loving martyr, do not teach that Jesus took the penalty for our sins and gave us His righteousness as a free gift. This is what sets Christianity apart from every other religion.

So, God came down to us as a human being, showed us His nature and character, and then suffered and died on the Cross to take the penalty for our sins, and then rose from the dead to show us that one day we will rise from the dead to be with Him. Christianity is the only one where a believer can say, "By grace I am saved through faith, not of myself, it is the gift of God, not through works lest any should boast."

Maybe a conversation with her about the sins of humanity and the gospel of God's grace and redemption through faith, and not primarily works would be fruitful.
I guess she just finds it naive in a sense, about all the people before christ, and people all around the world then and today who either don't get to hear it, or understand it.

Maybe trying to tie up old testament expectations and prophecies?

I guess the death on the cross and symbolism Christians use is confusing her as well. Understandable, I have and can struggle too.
As I understand Tim Keller, he explains it in legalistic terms, of a judge who forgive the crime. It's free for the criminal but cost everything for the judge, the 'billions' the criminal stole and never would be able to return (he's better explaining it!).

And maybe God talks to our Symbolic, poetic senses, through narratives which are also in this case historical, a case could be made?
Even though a cross er may sound strange,once one understand the meaning it seems easier for me personally to accept.

Doubts are common. She should take some solace in knowing that Christians of all kinds frequently have them. However, whether Christianity is true or not doesn't reside upon a simple notion that it "feels too small of a story" to be true. The size of an account or story doesn't matter where historical truth is a concerned.

She also doesn't need to be overly worried about Muslims and Hindus, other than the fact that those folks are more or less stuck in religions that have ahistorical notions which run up against the truths of Christianity. Personally, as a philosopher who studies Historiography and the Philosophy of History, I don't hold much respect for metaphysical or religious beliefs that are ahistorical in nature. I'd suggest she apply herself to at least some moderate study to challenge her doubts.

I could maybe talk to her about the women finding jesus, and the 500 Paul refers to, among other historical arguments. If you have some more please share. The fact that there are so many letters and gospels are good testimonies as well. The guy from Cold Case Christianity also seems able to conduct it as historical on the grounds it's written as eye witness accounts in the way it's written.

That's normal as a person matures and grows as a human being. There is nothing wrong with your friend. It's going from milk to meat, so to speak. Only Fundamentalists believe that people should all have the exact same attitudes towards religion, one as simplistic as their own.

You're right, haven't we all been on such and journey and still is.

This isn't really true. I know of plenty of religions that teach nothing of the sort. Christians do no favors by saying ridiculous things like this, that are so obviously untrue.

Just form curiosity, could you name a few?
I sometimes hear Muslims have different opinions in Allah being graceful, but some lean more towards works.
Hindus seem focused on nirvana, escaping the wheel of time and reincarnation here on earth through works.

But I guess Christianity could have some of the same, in a day afferent sense if you believe in a middle step between Heaven and Earth, a sort of purgatory. I think Lewis even wrote a book on the idea in The Great Divorce, also as a testement perhaps of hope towards souls who may be saved in the afterlife.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thank you for these, Gary is always good to watch so will give it a listen

Maybe a conversation with her about the sins of humanity and the gospel of God's grace and redemption through faith, and not primarily works would be fruitful.
I guess she just finds it naive in a sense, about all the people before christ, and people all around the world then and today who either don't get to hear it, or understand it.

Maybe trying to tie up old testament expectations and prophecies?

I guess the death on the cross and symbolism Christians use is confusing her as well. Understandable, I have and can struggle too.
As I understand Tim Keller, he explains it in legalistic terms, of a judge who forgive the crime. It's free for the criminal but cost everything for the judge, the 'billions' the criminal stole and never would be able to return (he's better explaining it!).

And maybe God talks to our Symbolic, poetic senses, through narratives which are also in this case historical, a case could be made?
Even though a cross er may sound strange,once one understand the meaning it seems easier for me personally to accept.


I could maybe talk to her about the women finding jesus, and the 500 Paul refers to, among other historical arguments. If you have some more please share. The fact that there are so many letters and gospels are good testimonies as well. The guy from Cold Case Christianity also seems able to conduct it as historical on the grounds it's written as eye witness accounts in the way it's written.

You're right, haven't we all been on such and journey and still is.

Just form curiosity, could you name a few?

The Japanese Buddhist sect of Jodo Shinshu believes that rebirth in the Pure Land is assured due to the compassion and merit of the Buddha Amithaba, the Buddha of Infinite Light, and not our own merit. George Takei, the actor from Star Trek, is probably the most well-known member of this religion, and it's one of the largest religions in Japan. Visiting temples, chanting, and listening to sermons about the Dharma are how people express their gratitude and sincerity, but they don't cause a person to be reborn in the Pure Land.

Japanese Shinto sects like Oomoto or Konkokyo are universalist. The emphasis in these religions is having faith and reverence for God (Kami-sama, "Most Honored Spirit") and working towards a world of peace and harmony.

The Sikh religion believes people are born due to karma but saved by the grace of God. This is also found in some Hindu sects.

In fact I'd say the idea of earning your way into heaven is more of a polemic used against non-Christian religions, than a fair representation of what most non-Christians actually believe.

I sometimes hear Muslims have different opinions in Allah being graceful, but some lean more towards works.
Hindus seem focused on nirvana, escaping the wheel of time and reincarnation here on earth through works.

There are different emphases, certainly, in different schools of Islam.

Nirvana is a Buddhist concept. The word in Hinduism is moksha, which is a more generic term that means "liberation". Hindu's don't all agree on what leads to liberation.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You're shifting the goalposts now, a kind of motte-and-bailey tactic. Your original claim was that all other religions teach that you must earn a state of blessedness in the afterlife, or something to that effect. I know for a fact that is false.

The details of Jesus life are debatable, even from a mainstream Christian point of view there is far from a scholarly consensus, especially on the details pertinent to Christians. So some religions either don't find those details persuasive, or they have different ways of interpreting them.

If you have decided to believe that, then that it up to you.

 

[Maniel]

The Japanese Buddhist sect of Jodo Shinshu believes that rebirth in the Pure Land is assured due to the compassion and merit of the Buddha Amithaba, the Buddha of Infinite Light, and not our own merit. George Takei, the actor from Star Trek, is probably the most well-known member of this religion, and it's one of the largest religions in Japan. Visiting temples, chanting, and listening to sermons about the Dharma are how people express their gratitude and sincerity, but they don't cause a person to be reborn in the Pure Land.

Japanese Shinto sects like Oomoto or Konkokyo are universalist. The emphasis in these religions is having faith and reverence for God (Kami-sama, "Most Honored Spirit") and working towards a world of peace and harmony.

The Sikh religion believes people are born due to karma but saved by the grace of God. This is also found in some Hindu sects.

In fact I'd say the idea of earning your way into heaven is more of a polemic used against non-Christian religions, than a fair representation of what most non-Christians actually believe.




There are different emphases, certainly, in different schools of Islam.

Nirvana is a Buddhist concept. The word in Hinduism is moksha, which is a more generic term that means "liberation". Hindu's don't all agree on what leads to liberation.

How would you view the gospels and whole idea of redemption through Jesus and the faith the is emphasized as the merit that saves? It talks about Jesus dying for whole humanity. Could it be that these groups may be saved by the limited knowledge they have upon God? Or what is your view for God's work here on earth, in different cultures and religions?

Lewis and Tolkien had this idea of myth around the world, all having some truth in them, but also mysteries, most myths acknowledge a sense of darkness and ignorance of the complete Truth. Where as they call Christianity the truth myth, that finally reveals the full message and power of God in the world.

I think the reason I would find myself sceptical on Islam, is that they twist the message of the gospel and it seems they leave more of the saving part upon humans, where in Christianity that can lead to a dangerous path of self-righteousness and often pride, instead of the Thanksgiving in God's supreme salvation for humanity.

So if one believes in one objective truth, my intuition is that there must be something absolute, but I'm open to the idea of a purgatory that will save those seeking God in the ignorence of their incomplete religious world view.

 

[FireDragon76]

How would you view the gospels and whole idea of redemption through Jesus and the faith the is emphasized as the merit that saves? It talks about Jesus dying for whole humanity. Could it be that these groups may be saved by the limited knowledge they have upon God? Or what is your view for God's work here on earth, in different cultures and religions?

Drawing on the 19th century Prussian theologian, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and the 20th century German-American theologian Paul Tillich, I think all religions are attempts to understand ultimate reality through symbols. Everyone has limited knowledge about God. This isn't just a problem for non-Christians, but for all people. I don't believe God has ever been restricted to a group of people: I don't think God is tribalistic in that way.

I have spent much of my adult life studying religion, metaphysics, and spiritual and mystical experiences, and that's what I believe it ultimately comes down to.

For somebody raised Protestant or Catholic, especially raised on defining the truth-value of religion in terms of its dogmas, I suppose this perspective could seem difficult.

Lewis and Tolkien had this idea of myth around the world, all having some truth in them, but also mysteries, most myths acknowledge a sense of darkness and ignorance of the complete Truth. Where as they call Christianity the truth myth, that finally reveals the full message and power of God in the world.

Lewis was actually influenced by Owen Barfield, and in some ways I'd probably share something in common with him.

I think the reason I would find myself sceptical on Islam, is that they twist the message of the gospel and it seems they leave more of the saving part upon humans, where in Christianity that can lead to a dangerous path of self-righteousness and often pride, instead of the Thanksgiving in God's supreme salvation for humanity.

I haven't studied Islam in as great depth as some other religions. However, you can find good and bad people in many religions, as people differ in how mature they are mentally and spiritually. People being less than their best selves is unfortunately more of the rule than the exception for human beings, and religion is no exception. Any religious leader that promises you something different, is probably being dishonest or is a con-artist.

 

[Maniel]

Drawing on the 19th century Prussian theologian, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and the 20th century German-American theologian Paul Tillich, I think all religions are attempts to understand ultimate reality through symbols. Everyone has limited knowledge about God. This isn't just a problem for non-Christians, but for all people. I don't believe God has ever been restricted to a group of people: I don't think God is tribalistic in that way.

I have spent much of my adult life studying religion, metaphysics, and spiritual and mystical experiences, and that's what I believe it ultimately comes down to.

For somebody raised Protestant or Catholic, especially raised on defining the truth-value of religion in terms of its dogmas, I suppose this perspective could seem difficult.




Lewis was actually influenced by Owen Barfield, and in some ways I'd probably share something in common with him.



I haven't studied Islam in as great depth as some other religions. However, you can find good and bad people in many religions, as people differ in how mature they are mentally and spiritually. People being less than their best selves is unfortunately more of the rule than the exception for human beings, and religion is no exception. Any religious leader that promises you something different, is probably being dishonest or is a con-artist.

I've listened to John Vervaeke talk on Tillich, but I remain ignorent on that part. But it's more about universal symbolism rather than only Christianity? So in your view, the Old testement, Abraham etc is God's revelation as he could have revealed himself to others?

Could it be said, that some religiouns are closer to the real identity of God? As I understand Buddhism, it doesn't really have a deity to begin with? While many of the practices may be useful, it seems lacking in other parts, whereas the jews seem to wrestle much closer to a personal creator.

I still need to read Barfield. But you would agree in Lewis on Christianity being a true myth? In what way do you believe in Jesus and his resurrection if I may ask? Would that be closer to a Symbolic/metaphoric interpretation rather than both a physical historic event and a Symbolic event?

I agree, you can find respectable teachers in Islam, and not so much in Christianity.

 

[FireDragon76]

I've listened to John Vervaeke talk on Tillich, but I remain ignorent on that part. But it's more about universal symbolism rather than only Christianity?

Yes. Tillich was a Christian simply because that's the religion he was raised in.

So in your view, the Old testement, Abraham etc is God's revelation as he could have revealed himself to others?

I don't regard the Old Testament as comparable to modern history, so it really doesn't matter that much to me. The Old Testament is the prologue to the New Testament. My religion is centered on the person of Jesus, not Abraham.

Could it be said, that some religiouns are closer to the real identity of God? As I understand Buddhism, it doesn't really have a deity to begin with?

It's a very different worldview from Evangelicalism and doesn't fit within the usual categories of religion, and is built around very different ego structures. Carl Jung's notion of archetypes are probably closer to how Buddhism would think about God or gods.

While many of the practices may be useful, it seems lacking in other parts, whereas the jews seem to wrestle much closer to a personal creator.

In Jewish mysticism, God isn't regarded as a personal being, since that would be a limitation on God. There are forms of Jewish theology, such as Martin Buber's, that are more about a personal being, but that isn't the only way that Jews relate to God.

For that matter, there have been Christians besides Tillich that have taken this approach. Like the medieval German mystic, Eckhart.

I still need to read Barfield. But you would agree in Lewis on Christianity being a true myth? In what way do you believe in Jesus and his resurrection if I may ask?

It depends on what kind of Christianity we are talking about, I suppose.

I believe in Jesus resurrection but I don't share American Evangelicals certainty about the mode of his resurrection. My metaphysical presuppositions are such that parsing out exactly what is meant by "bodily resurrection" is irrelevant, since I am more inclined towards subjective idealism or process metaphysics, anyways (Barfield and Lewis were both subjective idealists, and Lewis would not have agreed with American Evangelicals implications of a "bodily resurrection").

I think the story of Jesus invites us into a new vision for human life, similar to St. Francis centuries later. I am mostly influenced by Marcus Borg's Jesus scholarship, that Jesus was a "spirit person" or mystic, and I accept that most of the miracles in the Synoptic gospels attributed to him happened. That's not that rare among liberal scholars, since there seems to be a consensus that Jesus was a faith healer.

Would that be closer to a Symbolic/metaphoric interpretation rather than both a physical historic event and a Symbolic event?

It would be closer to symbolic interpretations.

I agree, you can find respectable teachers in Islam, and not so much in Christianity.

I am more impressed by Sufis I have encountered. However, there is also alot of religious fundamentalism in Islam, and alot of uncritical acceptance of religious traditions. Form criticism of the Quran, similar to what started happening with the Bible two centuries ago, is something that is relatively new, and hasn't had significant impacts on average Muslims religion, yet.

You have to have a measure of discernment. Many people are religious for very superficial and self-serving, worldly reasons, and they don't really understand alot of what they are talking about. Lots of wolves in sheep's clothing or the blind leading the blind. Besides doctors and politicians, machiavellian personalities are also highly attracted to clergy and religious leadership.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yes. Tillich was a Christian simply because that's the religion he was raised in.



I don't regard the Old Testament as comparable to modern history, so it really doesn't matter that much to me. The Old Testament is the prologue to the New Testament. My religion is centered on the person of Jesus, not Abraham.



It's a very different worldview from Evangelicalism and doesn't fit within the usual categories of religion, and is built around very different ego structures. Carl Jung's notion of archetypes are probably closer to how Buddhism would think about God or gods.



In Jewish mysticism, God isn't regarded as a personal being, since that would be a limitation on God. There are forms of Jewish theology, such as Martin Buber's, that are more about a personal being, but that isn't the only way that Jews relate to God.

For that matter, there have been Christians besides Tillich that have taken this approach. Like the medieval German mystic, Eckhart.



It depends on what kind of Christianity we are talking about, I suppose.

I believe in Jesus resurrection but I don't share American Evangelicals certainty about the mode of his resurrection. My metaphysical presuppositions are such that parsing out exactly what is meant by "bodily resurrection" is irrelevant, since I am more inclined towards subjective idealism or process metaphysics, anyways (Barfield and Lewis were both subjective idealists, and Lewis would not have agreed with American Evangelicals implications of a "bodily resurrection").

I think the story of Jesus invites us into a new vision for human life, similar to St. Francis centuries later. I am mostly influenced by Marcus Borg's Jesus scholarship, that Jesus was a "spirit person" or mystic, and I accept that most of the miracles in the Synoptic gospels attributed to him happened. That's not that rare among liberal scholars, since there seems to be a consensus that Jesus was a faith healer.



It would be closer to symbolic interpretations.




I am more impressed by Sufis I have encountered. However, there is also alot of religious fundamentalism in Islam, and alot of uncritical acceptance of religious traditions. Form criticism of the Quran, similar to what started happening with the Bible two centuries ago, is something that is relatively new, and hasn't had significant impacts on average Muslims religion, yet.

You have to have a measure of discernment. Many people are religious for very superficial and self-serving, worldly reasons, and they don't really understand alot of what they are talking about. Lots of wolves in sheep's clothing or the blind leading the blind. Besides doctors and politicians, machiavellian personalities are also highly attracted to clergy and religious leadership.

When we get away from the clearly written narrative of the Gospel record, we can over complicate things. Paul tried to match the wisdom of the Athenians on Mars Hill and basically failed and gained only a couple of converts. So when he went to the Corinthians, he determined not to know anything among them save Christ and Him crucified. He told them that we was not coming to them with the wisdom of man but in power and demonstration of the Holy Spirit.

What complicates things in your post is the reliance on man's wisdom to try and explain the life, ministry and resurrection of Jesus. The most reliable information is found in the clearly written narrative of the Gospel record. Including information from different philosophical theories and interpretations muddies the waters so much that anyone wishing to know who Jesus really is becomes confused and ends up not knowing anything substantive.

I have a Mastorate in Divinity, and I had difficulty understanding what your actual point and conclusion is in your post. I frankly don't know what you actually believe about Jesus Christ from what you have written in your post. But, hey; I'm just a guy with the Bible.

 

[Maniel]

Yes. Tillich was a Christian simply because that's the religion he was raised in.



I don't regard the Old Testament as comparable to modern history, so it really doesn't matter that much to me. The Old Testament is the prologue to the New Testament. My religion is centered on the person of Jesus, not Abraham.



It's a very different worldview from Evangelicalism and doesn't fit within the usual categories of religion, and is built around very different ego structures. Carl Jung's notion of archetypes are probably closer to how Buddhism would think about God or gods.



In Jewish mysticism, God isn't regarded as a personal being, since that would be a limitation on God. There are forms of Jewish theology, such as Martin Buber's, that are more about a personal being, but that isn't the only way that Jews relate to God.

For that matter, there have been Christians besides Tillich that have taken this approach. Like the medieval German mystic, Eckhart.



It depends on what kind of Christianity we are talking about, I suppose.

I believe in Jesus resurrection but I don't share American Evangelicals certainty about the mode of his resurrection. My metaphysical presuppositions are such that parsing out exactly what is meant by "bodily resurrection" is irrelevant, since I am more inclined towards subjective idealism or process metaphysics, anyways (Barfield and Lewis were both subjective idealists, and Lewis would not have agreed with American Evangelicals implications of a "bodily resurrection").

I think the story of Jesus invites us into a new vision for human life, similar to St. Francis centuries later. I am mostly influenced by Marcus Borg's Jesus scholarship, that Jesus was a "spirit person" or mystic, and I accept that most of the miracles in the Synoptic gospels attributed to him happened. That's not that rare among liberal scholars, since there seems to be a consensus that Jesus was a faith healer.



It would be closer to symbolic interpretations.




I am more impressed by Sufis I have encountered. However, there is also alot of religious fundamentalism in Islam, and alot of uncritical acceptance of religious traditions. Form criticism of the Quran, similar to what started happening with the Bible two centuries ago, is something that is relatively new, and hasn't had significant impacts on average Muslims religion, yet.

You have to have a measure of discernment. Many people are religious for very superficial and self-serving, worldly reasons, and they don't really understand alot of what they are talking about. Lots of wolves in sheep's clothing or the blind leading the blind. Besides doctors and politicians, machiavellian personalities are also highly attracted to clergy and religious leadership.

Thank you for taking your time to carefully answer my questions, I myself struggle to find my own standing between the literal/historical/the physical 'actual happened event' and then the spiritual/symbolic/arketype dimensions.
I like Johnathan Pageau,who's eastern Orthodox. He believes for example, as I understand him, both in the physical resurrection and in the symbols. That many if not all things happening around us has Symbolic meanings behind them. We see and understand the world much through symbolism.

So I'm curious, you don't think Lewis believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus body? With spiritual, does that mean something that is more in the realm of "beneficial thinking"? Like some truth, that is told in a spirtual manner to unlock new psychological insights of new potential of what it means to be human and how to act in a higher state of consciousness? If that makes any sense.

Doesn't the Bible say that Jesus new body was spiritual, as he could walk through things, not limited to the physical boundaries. Would you interpret that as historical, or something that didn't actually happened but is more Symbolic of some other truths?
It goes on to say that he ate food and so on, to further tell the story that he wasn't some ethereal creature, but perhaps in a way had substance.

Why would the gospels go into so much details about Jesus after the resurrection, if they didn't believe he actually rose?

What do you think of theologians that tries to prove or disprove the resurrection, are they doing it from a misunderstanding of what the authors tried to say about the Symbolic implications?
Those trying to prove, will point towards the ladies first seeing Jesus, post-mortem appearances to the disciples and the 500 people.
Those trying to disprove will tell you those 500 might have hallucinated, form their naturalistic world view that cannot allow such events at all cost. Miraculous one time events don't happen, even though the universe did. Or that Jesus had a twin etc.

If I may ask, where do you land exactly? At one point you seem open that a guy physically healed people by some super-natural powers, but you don't believe that power could rise him from the death? Or what do you mean?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just curious on these subjects!